Talk:Green Party of England and Wales

Pippa Bartolotti
I don't see that it is relevant that Bartolotti appeared on Come Dine With Me, or that she supposedly performed a psychic reading. This article is about the GPEW, not about one person. If Bartolotti had her own article, her CDWM appearance would be an entirely relevant addition to that page, but not to this page.

It is relevant to the article to mention who the WGP leader is and to provide a (or more) RS to support this, but the activity of the WGP leader is not relevant.

For example, on the GPEW page, we do not mention that Natalie Bennett is Australian (we do mention it on her own page), on the UK Labour Party article, we did not mention that Ed Miliband was of Jewish heritage, but it is mentioned on his page, and on the UKIP page we do not mention that Nigel Farage had testicular cancer, but we mention it on his page. None of these facts (all of which can be supported by RS) are relevant to the party, but are completely relevant to the individual. Frinton100 (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also I find the following sentence on WGP confusing&mdash;could someone who understands it, reword it?
 * Also differently from the full party, the Wales Green Party (and the North West region of England) elects a Principal Speaker who may refer to themselves as the Leader of the Wales Green Party, although, like the Green Party of England and Wales' former principal speakers, they have no powers of leadership.
 * How is this different from GPEW? Are they a leader or not&mdash;after all anybody can refer to themselves as leader but have no power of leadership? What is the relevance of the NW region of England here&mdash;they are not the same PS surely? Btljs (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the implication of that sentence is that Wales and NW England each elect a PS, but the other English regions do not. However, there is confusion as to the status of the Welsh PS/Leader with the latter title seemingly used more by both the Welsh Green Party and the media.
 * Also, I cannot find any source to back up the claim that NW England has a PS (see http://northwest.greenparty.org.uk/north-west-officers.html), and in fact the Principal Speaker page suggests the role was "abandoned" some time ago.
 * I agree the section needs to be re-written by a GP expert, and I think the one thing that it definitely needs is some citaion from an official GP source (e.g. the party rule book). That would also clear up at least one strand of the argument in the Welsh Greens deletion debate. Frinton100 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting a discussion. Keeping on topic. Wales Green Party page is going to be merged with this page. There will no longer be a page separate from GPEW where this information may or may not be accessed. Any useful information that page holds will be placed here. There is not a dedicated page for Pippa and as the Leader/Spokesperson for Wales her media situation is relevant to the Wales Green Party branch and the GPEW as a whole. Given the substantial amount of media attention it held and has many citations it is notable. Drowz0r (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I only changed subject because I considered the removal of this information as common sense. The Wales Green Party page doesn't see fit to include this information so that argument is a non-starter. Where is this substantial media attention? I find a Channel 4 reference which is primary source and a SunNation article titled Introducing the wacky Green Party leader for Wales. Btljs (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You should start a different heading if you are discussing a completely different subject matter. To answer your question, the OP that was twice removed by Frinton, which subsequently resulted in the page being partially-locked, contained three citations, while most items only contain 1 citation. If you look through the history, on my edit, you will see the citations. In short, it featured in 3 big media and an absolutely horde of small online blogs, but I thought it best not to include the small blogs. Drowz0r (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Three big media citations: you are kidding right? In addition to the SunNation one I mentioned above, you have pro-Israel "fascist" headline loving UKMediaWatch which once cited this website thus: Here it is from Wikipedia – that anti-semitic Website –, and Walespolitico.uk&mdash;which just gathers together news stories from other sources. Have you got anything else or if not I consider this subject closed? Btljs (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page, intended for discussion. If you consider the matter closed, then fine - but I will continue to discuss the matter. The citations were within wiki's requirements as far as I can tell. If not, then you need to say why not. I would rather satisfy wiki's requirements than go through a list of what you personally feel is and is not needed Drowz0r (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Walespolitico had an interview with Pippa. I think that was the article I actually linked. They often get a lot of direct and exclusives. Drowz0r (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, my edits were not the cause of the partial-protection. The protection was added in response to repeated vandalism on 25 May and expires on 25 June.
 * (Understood. My mistake. Drowz0r (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC) )
 * I have removed the section about the North West having a PS as I can find no evidence to support this, and it contradicts the Principal Speaker article. Given the NWGP website shows no sign of a PS/Leader, I suspect the PS page is correct and that this page was showing outdated information. I'd happily admit my error if someone can provide evidence to the contrary, and I'll even change the PS page! Frinton100 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wales Green Party
As noted at the head of this Talkpage, the result of the AfD discussion (closed 23 June 2015) for the article Wales Green Party (WGP) was to merge the content here. Tbh, not much additional material is contained in the WGP that isn't here already. I just added that the WGP contest elections in Wales (which wasn't noted here). Some of the history section could be merged too. The WGP article contains some election results. Do editors think they should be noted here? Please comment soon, either way. I intend to turn the WGP page into a redirect page (to here) in the next ten days, unless anyone objects. Daicaregos (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be wrong to delete the Wales Green Party page

There is no basis for the deletion of the wales green party page and i wish to formally challenge this. The Wales Green party is running a full slate of candidates in the elections to the National Assembly for Wales next year. Furthermore it has been drawing up a manifesto for those elections, a manifesto put together exclusively by the membership in wales. A visit to it's website gives an insight into how active the wales green party is https://wales.greenparty.org.uk/news/. It is quite wrong to delete the wales green party page and merge it with the page for england and wales. The page should be retained and it's candidates in next year's election should continue to be referred to as candidates of the Wales Green party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_for_Wales_election,_2016.)

'Wales Green Party' is what will be on the ballot paper for next year's elections to the senedd and that's how they will legally be registered with the electoral commission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly object. I will come back with my reasons for this, this weekend when I have time to give this the attention it deserves. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Objection I'm a member of the party, but I see no strong reason for the deletion of the Wales Green Party article. If the article isn't up to high standards, we can work on improving it. There are plenty of examples of branches of political parties getting their own Wikipedia article though, even ones that don't stand for elections: Ontario Young Liberals.

Please don't be rash and continue with this based on a limited discussion with some people clearly making politically motivated comments. Jackgovier (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article on Wales Green Party was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2015. The result of the subsequent discussion, which closed on 23 June 2015 (over four months ago), determined that the article be merged into this article. If editors feel the closure was made in error, it should be brought up at Deletion review rather than here. Nevertheless, as there now seems to be some disagreement, I will delay the making the changes I mentioned above to allow editors more time to decide what they want to do, if anything. Should no-one have stated here (by 8 November 2015) that they are considering a request for a deletion review, I will turn the WGP page into a redirect page in accordance with the AfD result. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am most definitely going to request a deletion review, especially as the original deletion request may have been politically motivated and therefore highly inappropriate for a page of this type. The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months. There are also many links to this page from constituency pages and Assembly Regional pages so a delete would create many dead links as well. need to get this sorted and the delete stopped ASAP. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll await the outcome of the review before making any changes. Daicaregos (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But the gun appears to have been well and truly jumped now. 179.199.171.206 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review created

I have now requested a deletion review here; Deletion review/Log/2015 November 2 Jimmy3d0 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the outcome of the review is that because it does not require an admin then this should be thrashed out on here by us (I think this would be more appropriate on the talk page of the article itself) but anyway, if that is what needs to happen to resolve this, bring it on ;-) Jimmy3d0 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Daicaregos Please could you confirm what the protocol should now be in the light of the above RE;"the outcome of the review seems to be that because this does not require an admin then this should be thrashed out on here by us" Thanks in advance Jimmy3d0 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion review was closed with an endorse (decision to merge at AfD was not overturned).  —Мандичка YO 😜 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Wales Green Party become a standalone article?
In a June 2015 discussion - Articles for deletion/Wales Green Party - the consensus was that article Wales Green Party should be merged into Green Party of England and Wales. This has now been done. However, there is a feeling that new sources have emerged since June 2015, which might warrant Wales Green Party becoming a stand alone article again. The relevant guides are Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability. Participants in the June 2015 discussion, and significant contributors to Green Party of England and Wales or Wales Green Party will be notified of this discussion. Policy and guideline focused comments will carry more weight than opinion or assertion. Essentially what is required is evidence from significant mentions (not listings or mentions in passing) in independent reliable sources that the Wales Green Party is notable enoiugh for a standalone article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally think it's best to add more content to this article regarding the Wales Green Party until the article should exist as a separate article, but I'm willing to be overruled if other editors think the articles should be split. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "the consensus was that article Wales Green Party should be merged into Green Party of England and Wales. This has now been done."
 * Now, just a minute. There was never a consensus that the page should be merged - you closed it with that decision despite a majority view to the contrary. You reasoned that some of those opinions were worth less than others; a view on which I have no opinion, you may be right. But let's not start misrepresenting things.
 * It also seems unnecessarily inflamatory for you to make the change today (not just after the event or in the fullness of time) in full knowledge that your closure is under formal challenge. As anonymous above says, this is jumping the gun. (I think too that you as closer of a request, and therefore disinterested, should not do the edit - leave that to the originator or interested participants).
 * @Zomoarirodoka talks about whether other editors think "the article should be split" - perhaps (I don't know) he is not aware that it was two articles until this morning when you joined them. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't wish this discussion to go off topic. The discussion should focus on the issue of should Wales Green Party be restored as a standalone article; however I will respond to your concerns. Consensus is the policy we use to decide the outcome of discussions, and it is not - as indicated at WP:CLOSEAFD - a simple tally count of votes. Assessing consensus is a judgement call based on the arguments raised, and the wider consensus of the entire community as outlined in guidelines and policies - see the WP:CONLIMITED section of Consensus. As it is a judgement call, the close can be questioned, which is what the deletion review process is for. In this case, the outcome wasn't to either keep or delete the article, but to merge it into another article; as such the article remains on Wikipedia, but is moved to another location. That outcome was decided by my interpretation of the arguments raised based on our guidelines on notability and sourcing. When an AfD is closed as merge the closer can add tags to the relevant articles or do the merge themselves. Same as when the outcome is delete, the closer - if a delete outcome it should be an admin - will carry out the delete themselves. In cases where the merge looks time-consuming or complex there is no onus on the closer to do the merge themselves, so tagging is acceptable. Where possible I prefer to do the work associated with closing any discussion myself. We are all volunteers, and I dislike leaving instructions for others to carry out work I can do myself. In this case I left the merge as there was a lot of information in the Wales Green Party, and I felt it would be best left to the article editors to decide what should be merged. I didn't expect that there would be an edit war over the merge tag itself. On being made aware of the situation, and seeing that nobody was stepping up to take responsibility, and to prevent continued warring over the tag, I carried out the merge myself, and then opened this discussion. If you still have concerns about my actions, please raise them on my talkpage, so this discussion can stay focused.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  07:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment "you closed it with that decision despite a majority view to the contrary" shows you may need to understand more about the deletion process. It is NOT a democratic vote and majority view does not matter. It is based purely on arguments following policy. The reason why "some of those opinions were worth less than others" is precisely because they did not properly support Wikipedia policy, mainly, WP:BRANCH.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of the requirements. What I was calling attention too was the claim that consensus had been reached when in fact an active (and lively) discussion back in June was closed prematurely, about 10 days in, with the majority of the participants in that discussion clearly against. The point of the process is to generate discussion, not to stifle it.
 * I have no particular interest in the subject matter and will now drop out of the discussion as, as SilkTork points out, the question of how the AfD was dealt with is a bit off topic. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes 'Wales Green Party' Should become a standalone article (again!)
 * Thanks Bagunceiro, I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, this was not a good time to do the merge considering the level of contention.
 * There is lots of evidence for Wales Green Party being notable enough to warrant being a standalone article, others have already made these arguments, here is one made yesterday on the DRV thread by D Karras - Quoted text below;


 * "Oppose deletion or a redirect of the Wales Green Party Page The original deletion request made a number of erroneous claims about the wales green party, and these have been highlighted by correspondents on the talk page and on this page. But just to recap members in wales elect their own leader, officers and ruling council. And members in wales put together a welsh green manifesto to be presented to the welsh electorate in the elections to the national assembly for wales next may. The affairs of the wales green party are not determined outside wales.


 * While it is frankly semantic nonsense for some to suggest the welsh green party doesnt have a 'leader'. Pippa Bartolotti was very publicly elected leader of the welsh greens in a leadership contest last year http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/11669116.Newport_s_Bartolotti_re_elected_as_Wales_Green_Party_leader/. She is repeatedly referred to in the online, print and broadcast media as being the 'leader of the wales green party', and perhaps the best and most telling examples of this came in the televised debates in wales during last may's general election when pippa bartolotti was billed as the 'leader of the wales green party' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32530830 and http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/wales-green-party-weve-broken-so-many-records/


 * In short to everyone in the world - a couple of wikipedia contributors seemingly excepted - the welsh green party has a 'leader'. As for comments about the wales green wikipedia page not being updated well those who made those claims obviously havent visited the page recently.It's not only very up to date but gives a very comprehensive and informative account of the wales green party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_Green_Party.


 * Finally the wales green party candidate's in next year's elections to the welsh assembly will be registered with the electoral commission in wales as standing for the 'Wales Green Party/Plaid Werdd Cymru'. In effect and legally speaking the wales green party exists and is fully deserving of a page in its own right and certainly not deletion or a redirect from another page. No one has the right to downgrade the wikipedia status of what is a legally registered party in wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras"


 * I will be adding plenty more evidence of my own in the coming days Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence of notability
 * Here are some examples and evidence of the notability of Wales Green Party.


 * "Deputy Green Party leader Amelia Womack is seeking nomination to stand for the Welsh Assembly, it was announced tonight."after handing in her nomination papers to the Welsh Green Party on Thursday."


 * "Cardiff University is pleased to invite you to our Wales in Westminster Lecture Series. This series of lectures will take place in the run up to the 2015 General Election. In this lecture we welcome the leader of the Wales Green Party,"


 * "Local campaigner set to stand for Wales Green Party in general election"


 * "Wales Green Party to hold 'Westmonster' debate with political video-blogger Mark McGowen in Chepstow"


 * "Wales Green Party celebrates increase in 2015 election vote share"


 * More to follow Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the party does or did exist, then yes it deserves it own article. See Reform Party of Canada, Canadian Alliance & Progressive Conservative Party of Canada as examples of a party that has changed it's name & parties that have merged to become a new party. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not how it works. The deletion outcome noted that the party exists, but that is not sufficient for its own article. I'm skeptical that it can't be covered in the article Green Party of England and Wales. The appropriate guideline is WP:BRANCH: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Your links don't show that.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A scandalous decision

So the merge has gone ahead anyway, despite a post on this page stating this wouldnt proceed if there were objections. People duly objected - but they were then informed they needed to raise this matter on a deletion review page. so a deletion review page was set up but we were then informed the most appropriate page to continue this discussion was back on this talk page. But lo and behold before we got the opportunity to discuss this matter any further we then find the the page has been merged with the ewgp page anyway.

Er so what exactly has been the point of us objecting, setting up a deletion review and agreeing to come back to this talk page? As it would appear certain parties involved were determined to do away with the wales green party page irrespective of any objections raised and evidence provided of the case for a stand alone wales green party page. i have to comment this is the worst example of sharp practice ive ever come across in the online world. It would appear contributors have been purposefully misled and their objections blindly disregarded.I certainly dont intend to let this matter rest, indeed im sure the wild goose chase we were evidently sent on will only serve to make people more determined to bring about the restoration of the wales green party page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the banner was sitting upon the GPW page for several months, where it clearly directed users to take part in the debate. Many users contributed and a LONG time passed before the decision was made. If something has changed since then though, I suggest making a new case for the separation of the pages.31.185.227.212 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been taking a quick look at this. As far as I can see the AfD was raise on 13th June. Discussion took place from then until 22nd and certainly no consensus had been arrived at by then. On the 23rd it was closed, prematurely I think, by SilkTork. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it should be a separate article
 * As mentioned above there was very little support for merger in the first place. The bulk of respondents to the AfD back in the summer were either supporting outright deletion or keeping. I agree with all of the above reasons for re-instating the WGP article. Additionally, I think it is useful to have the Welsh party's electoral performance collated in one place, separate to the GPEW data. The elections section of the old WGP article needed more work; I had started to tidy it up when the AfD was closed, so stopped, but would be happy to finish the job if we get the WGP article back. I would also add a couple of further links to those provided by Jimmy3d0 above (apologies if I'm duplicating):
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-13268253 - note that here the BBC affords the WGP equal billing with Welsh Labour, Conservatives, LibDems and Plaid Cymru.
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-12569785
 * Frinton100 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I participated in the deletion discussion and recommended merge, but have an open mind here. My main feeling was that the organization is identified as a chapter of the larger party (along with East Midlands, Eastern, London, North East, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber) and not a sister party like the Scottish one. The organization is specifically called Green Party of England & Wales! I also noted that in the Wales elections, the candidates ran under the "Green Party of England & Wales" and not the "Green Party of Wales." Can someone point me in the direction where they are officially referred to as a separate group (and not just media references)? So far I'm just not seeing anything that would indicate this is anything but a chapter of the larger group, which again, clearly identifies itself as being of both England AND Wales.  —Мандичка YO 😜 01:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are part of the GPEW, but they have greater autonomy than the English regions. They have their own leader, they formulate their own policies for Welsh elections, they have a specific "Welsh Green Party" ballot paper description registered with the Electoral Commission. No one is suggesting they are a separate party like the Scottish Greens, only that they have a similar level of autonomy to the Welsh Labour Party and Welsh Conservatives. Frinton100 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Greater autonomy though doesn't really indicate separate notability. I guess I still don't understand the point of a separate article - the article "Green Party of England & Wales" should adequately address Wales, considering it has Wales in the title! Additionally, the Wales section is all of three lines in this article. That doesn't give you a very strong argument for a separate article. Was the previous article really this short, or was it just properly not merged back into this article?  —Мандичка YO 😜 02:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous article was much longer. It included electoral history as well. I'm not saying it didn't need work, but there was substance there for a decent article. I think the strongest argument for the article is that Welsh Labour, Welsh LibDems etc are not independent parties; they have greater autonomy than the English regions in their respective parties, but they are not separate entities, yet they still have their own articles. Frinton100 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is notability for a separate article - those parties have continually performed well, am I right? Have the Welsh Greens ever elected anybody? Based on the comment in the deletion review it would seem no ("The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months"), and it's pretty clear that there is political motivation to promote the Greens, which is NOT what Wikipedia is for. We don't give things their own articles because we want them to be visible - we go by the sources on notability. When you have a party that has never elected anybody or had much of an impact, it's hard to argue notability. And the links here are not that impressive, brief mentions for the most part, hardly in-depth as required. And the big issue here is that the parent group very specifically is called "Green Party of England and Wales" - it's kind of obvious that this very specifically includes Wales!!!! - and I seem to recall the Welsh candidates registered under this party and not a separate Welsh party.   —Мандичка YO 😜 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not assume that those advocating the article are pursuing a political agenda. It is certainly not my rationale for wanting the page kept. Plenty of other parties that have never elected anyone to national parliaments/assemblies have their own articles. And again, I would remind you that we are not arguing that the WGP is not part of a larger party. We all accept that it is. The Welsh Green Party is part of the GPEW, just as the Welsh Labour Party is part of the UK Labour Party. Welsh Labour candidates (even at Welsh Assembly elections) are all nominated by the UK-wide nominating officer; so yes, the WGP candidates will be nominated by the GPEW nominating officer, but that is not a reason for WGP to not have their own article. Frinton100 (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the Welsh Labour and Welsh Conservatives have met the requirements set out at WP:BRANCH - because the Welsh party is merely a branch/subunit of the GPEW and not a separate entity, it needs to meet these notability requirements. The Welsh Labour, Welsh Conservatives etc don't have articles because people just decided they were worthy - they met the burdens required by WP. It seems like people are arguing that it should be notable, but we have to have empirical proof that it is, and we follow the guidelines at WP:BRANCH. We need substantial coverage of the party outside its local area, which we just don't have. If you can find it, then you can persuade people it deserves its own article. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On what planet is http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05sjkjf/the-wales-report-election-leaders-debate not significant coverage? Also, please explain the relative notability of Ontario Young Liberals to me. Jackgovier (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't access iPlayer from the United States but it appears it is a debate of candidates? That's not independent coverage of the Wales Green Party at all! That's a debate and if anything it goes notability to the election and maybe the candidates. I don't know anything about the Ontario Young Liberals article - feel free to propose it for deletion. I did notice this ref goes to a CTV article (dead now) that discusses the (national) Young Liberals in depth, what they stand for/who they support, some history, their affiliated clubs etc. This is the kind of article you need on Wales Green Party.  —Мандичка YO 😜 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't propose its deletion, because regardless of how well you personally feel it fits with the rules, the information is still valid and useful. Much like the Wales Green Party having a separate article. I can't see why people can't apply some common sense to this situation. The BBC leadership debates, if you search around, were a huge deal this year, because of their definition of notability. They have a select criteria on which parties to include. They chose 6 parties in Wales, including the Wales Green Party. The BBC is an external organisation, a UK-wide organisation, and they gave 1/6 of the spotlight in Wales to the Wales Green Party. Others such as the various Socialist parties operating in Wales did not get an invite. Why is the BBC's (who are accountable to the British people, and significantly, Ofcom, independent regulators) measure of notability not good enough for Wikipedia? The leader of the Wales Green Party was on national television on the same stage as the leaders of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Conservatives and Welsh Labour (plus others), but the Wales Green Party is *in your opinion* insignificant. Jackgovier (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * CommentOn the face of it there is quite a long section in this article dedicated to the Wales Green Party, which lists lots of election results. Where is the English equivalent? If this was included for England then this would be too long for one page and it would have to be split; whether that split should be GPEW and WGP or GPEW and 'GPEW election results' is debatable. I'm actually surprised that there are pages on Welsh Labour and Welsh Conservatives but then I imagine the parent party pages are pretty huge. Btljs (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a GPEW Election Results page. The Welsh results on the main GPEW article are all lifted directly off the old WGP article. I was in the process of tidying the results when the AfD was closed in June - I had done the NAW elections, and was planning to cull most of the GE data and just leave a summary, and do something similar with the Euros. If the WGP page is restored then I'm happy to carry on with this. If we don't restore the WGP page, I think most if not all of the results data needs to be moved over to the election results page. One of the reasons I think the WGP page is useful is that is good to be able to collate all of the party's Welsh electoral performance on one page. Frinton100 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification wales green party candidates standing in next year's elections to the welsh assembly will be standing for the wales green party/plaid werdd cymru and not the 'england and wales green party' as is mistakenly being claimed.Indeed candidates will be registered with the electoral commission wales as standing for 'wales green party/plaid werdd cymru' which in effect confers legal status on the wales green party. Also they will be nominated by a nominating officer in the wales green party, and not a 'uk nominating officer' as is again mistakenly claimed. Furthermore to judge by some comments you would think that the wales green party made no decisions of its own when this is patent nonsense.The leader, deputy leader and national council of the wales green party are elected by the membership in wales. similarly the manifesto the welsh green present for elections to the welsh assembly is drawn up by the membership in wales. There is no reason why the wales green party should not have a stand alone page. As user btljs points out the welsh conservatives and welsh labour have their own pages,and the welsh greens are every bit as autonomous as them. And as user frinton points out such a page is also useful to be able to collate all of the welsh greens electoral performances on one page. D Karras (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While we clearly agree on our preferred outcome for the WGP party page, there is only one nominating officer for the whole of the GPEW (Chris Rose). He may well have authorised someone in Wales to act on his behalf and sign all the nomination forms - as he may well have done elsewhere - but he is the only one whose authority allows someone else to sign off on candidate nomination papers. Nominating Officers for all of the large parties will have local people authorised as signatories, given that every candidate - even down to parish council level - would need a form signed. Some parties had thousands of candidates just in the English local elections last year, so it's too much for one person to do. Frinton100 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

But the fact remains welsh green candidates in all elections are nominated by a nominating officer in wales - not from outside wales as has been implied. And to repeat for the umpteenth time that green candidates in next years elections to the welsh assembly will be registered with the electoral commission wales as 'wales green party/ plaid werdd cymru' candidates. A party which registers with the electoral commission in wales is legally registered - yet some 'editors' here have unilaterally decided a legally registered party in wales isnt deserving of a page on wikipedia. Yet welsh labour and the welsh conservatives are? Presumably they have their own pages because the welsh labour and conservatives have sprung up as a result of devolution in the uk, just as the london labour party has its own page for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_Party (london like wales having its own assembly.)

But it would appear that wikipedia is very selective in its page response to devolution - welsh and london labour have their own stand alone pages but the welsh greens dont! There is no reasonable or fair explanation for such inconsistency. It's clear to a lot of us the welsh greens have been discriminated against despite all the reasoned arguments in favour of a 'stand alone' page for them. When people dont and wont listen to reasoned arguments its impossible not to conclude an ulterior motive. It's also abundantly clear those of us arguing in favour of the retention of a wales green party page have been wasting our time here. Those who've made this bizarre decision werent ever going to listen to our arguments.

We've been shunted from page to page, then invited to continue the 'discussion' only to find an editor personally decided to bring a guillotine down on the matter before any further discussion could take place. Its also clear that a tiny coterie of 'editors' (one of whom has been repeatedly critical of the wales green party and its leader pippa bartolotti on his own blog and on social networks like FB) have been intent upon removing the wales green party page come what may.

But rest assured people are not fools - its perfectly clear to anyone with eyes to see what's going on here.Needless to say it's a scandalous episode which reflects terribly on wikipedia itself.Welsh greens would expect to get done over by the corporatocracy - but not by something (wikipedia) which purports to be its opposite.There is obviously nothing to be gained by commenting on this naked stitch up any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - please familiarize yourself with WP rules. You will not gain any favor here by declaring there is a conspiracy against you. I'm an American and I have no bias here. I truly could not care less whether or not the Wales Green Party has its own article. Autonomy has nothing to do with it. The Welsh Green Party is a branch of the Green Party of England and Wales and as such notability is determined by the policies outlined in WP:BRANCH. Nobody has provided any articles that would show you qualify under this criteria as all your coverage is in Wales only. That means you need an article or some kind of coverage (radio or TV feature) from outside your local area that discusses the Wales Green Party in depth – not an article about the Welsh election, not an article about the candidates, not an article about the candidates' pets, but about the organization itself — its history, its structure, its leaders, its goals, etc. Welsh Labour and Welsh Conservatives have many, many, many such articles about them from outside Wales. Therefore, they are determined to be notable. This is how Wikipedia works.    —Мандичка YO 😜 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Welsh Labour and Welsh Conservatives actually get very little coverage outside Wales, as would be expected. Frinton100 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about gaining favour, although whenever matters of national identity are raised you are bound to get strong emotional responses - I don't think merely repeating WP rules ad nauseam is really going to resolve this. : what exactly is your position here because you seem to be the main obstacle to (re)creation of a page. Could we not create it with a reasonable period of 'under construction' time to see whether enough notability and sources are obtained? In matters of the politick, surely there is an argument for even handed treatment of different parties within a geographical region? Btljs (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Welsh TV debates were filmed in Wales but broadcast by the BBC and ITV nationally in the United Kingdom, ITV streamed the program live on their website and then posted it on their on demand channel (where it remains) and the BBC posted it on BBC iplayer. Surely this counts as "notabiltiy outside of Wales"!? See; ITV Leader Deabates Wales, and BBC Leader Debates Wales highlights. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also see this link, this is a notable acknowledgement on the BBC national website that Wales Green Party to target three Assembly seats. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And this ITV article on the ITV national website titled;Green Deputy Leader Wants To Switch To Welsh Politics, which clearly states "Opinion polls have occasionally suggested that the Greens could gain a list seat in the Senedd" Jimmy3d0 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And tonite another 'independent' acknowledgement of the wales green party, which furthermore refers to the fact the wales green party does indeed have a leader and is currently engaged in a new leadership contest http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34786586#_=_ As user Btljs has points out only one contributor to this talk still wants to do away with the WGP page and the wide consensus seems to be the wales green party page should be restored. It would evidently be a violation of wikipedia's editorial democratic norms for this state of affairs to continue. So what are we waiting for? Lets restore the Wales Green Party page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am seeing on this page some of the same assertions that took place in the AfD discussion. What is required for a standalone article is evidence of notability. The appropriate criteria are at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The essential points are that the subject should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", with significant coverage defined as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is established that just a listing or name mention is not seen as significant coverage. See WP:ORGDEPTH for details of the sort of mentions that are not seen as significant. An article on the Wales Green Party by an independent reliable source would be seen as significant, though we would prefer more than just one. I understand this is frustrating for you guys, but we have these guidelines in order to prevent saturation of Wikipedia by minor organisations wanting to promote themselves. That such guidelines also trap the Wales Green Party is irksome, but is more than compensated for by the fact that all the relevant information is still available for every reader who types in Wales Green Party. There has been no deletion of material, and everyone can still read the details. What has happened is simply a technical shuffle in order to comply with guidelines so we don't start a slippery slope that ends up with every minor organisation and company on the planet promoting themselves on Wikipedia. We have a line. At the moment Wales Green Party do not cross that line. You need that significant coverage. Trivial mentions are not acceptable. See also WP:BRANCH. The Green Party of England and Wales is made up of just over 200 local parties and 10 regional parties.. We don't require an article on each one. But I am sure that a Google search for many of them, particularly the regional branches, would return some hits in which the branch name was mentioned: London Green Party, East Midlands Green Party, South Tyneside Green Party, etc. Finding trivial mentions of the local branch is not the way forward. What is needed is, and I stress, significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just the name of the branch, but some comment on details of the branch to show why it is notable. At the moment all we are getting is that the branch exists, but we are not getting why Wikipedia should have a standalone alone on it. Personal opinions of Wikipedia editors regarding the branch's importance are not considered evidence of notability. Find a detailed article (preferably two) and the argument and debate stops. If the branch is notable, there will be an article out there. Be aware, though, that due to the local coverage aspect of the guidelines: WP:AUD, the article(s) should be published outside of Wales.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are merely restating the same old arguments which I believe we have already more than answered, so I won't. Either the page will get made or it won't - personally, I would like to see it given a period of time to prove itself, but I expect someone can quote a WP:REDTAPE as to why it shouldn't. Can I just point out that Independent_Party_of_Connecticut has a page? Now, I guess someone found some US news sources outside the state which talk about it, and you'll no doubt argue that it isn't a branch of anything, but with 16,000 voters it's under half the size of WGP. I don't buy the Slippery slope logical fallacy: each subject is and should be dealt with independently and there is no dangerous precedent here (since the Independent Party of Connecticut already has a page, I'm not sure what you are protecting against). Your argument about how many regional parties there are is directly contradictory to your main argument about notability: it's irrelevant because each one would have to prove WP:N separately and not get a page simply to be fair. The main party is Green Party of England and Wales not Green Party of London, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wales. Btljs (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that all ten branches of the GPEW should get their own article. The point is that the Welsh party is different to the other nine for two main reasons. One of them is the level of autonomy that they enjoy, which is far greater than the other regional branches. The second reason is the level of coverage. The English regional branches receive very little (if any) coverage of their own activities. Any coverage in, say, the South West, will typically be of "the Green Party" or the "Green Party of England and Wales" not of "the South West Green Party". I think a number of sources have been identified by several users above that show a reasonable level of coverage of the Welsh party in local, national and UK-wide media. The fact the BBC includes their leader in a GE debate and that they are one of the five parties mentioned in the eve-of-poll article on the 2011 Welsh Assembly election I provided above (given equal billing with Labour, Cons, LD and PC), I think shows that RS consider them worthy of mention alongside the more "established" Welsh parties; as does the coverage of their leadership election. Welsh Labour, Welsh Conservatives and Welsh LDs attract realtively little coverage outside of Wales (as would be expected - why would a political party receive coverage outside of its area to any great degree?), and yet there is near-universal agreement that they are entitled to their own articles, so I don't see why the WGP should be any different. Frinton100 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear consensus here is to restore the page, so I've done it before the mess gets any worse. There is probably some "unmerging", especially of any edits done since the merge, still to do. In the unlikely event that a consensus to merge the pages is arrived at it's going to be easier to remerge than to unpick any intervening changes. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "clear consensus" - we go by Wikipedia policy not on how many members of the Wales Green Party shout here. We need the coverage to support notability. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Who else is opposed apart from you? We've made the arguments, you can't stand as a lone flag waver for the policies of Wikipedia. If anybody is 'shouting' it is you and your last statement implies only you can judge the coverage as notable, as others here clearly consider that it is. Btljs (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SilkTork has very plainly stated the same (09:43, 12 November 2015). The AfD was quite clear as well. No, I am not the only one who can judge the coverage as notable, but you don't seem to understand the requirements. An article about the Wales election is not in-depth coverage of the Wales Green Party. A broadcast of the Wales candidates debating is not in-depth coverage of the Wales Green Party. In-depth coverage of the Wales Green Party itself is what is needed, and it must be from outside Wales. Arguments about autonomy are totally irrelevant. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion review has ended and deletion is endorsed. Article will be merged and redirected until a time sources exist to support own article.  —Мандичка YO 😜 10:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion post-deletion review

 * Ridiculous that one editor is acting as judge and jury on this decision - please refer this to adminstrators or whoever has the clout to make a rational and reasoned decision. This is editorial fascism at its worst. Btljs (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Two administrators (not me) have endorsed the deletion through AfD and deletion review, so I don't know why you're attacking me. I didn't even start the AfD in the first place. You've been reported at WP:ANI as requested. —Мандичка YO 😜 15:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was the one who advocated the initial change in WGP. Many, many others agreed at the time and a long debate continued. This also happened to other political pages, it wasn't only WGP. Since then my political standing has changed and I considered it may be construed as a conflict of interest if I took part in the next (this) debate. However, I feel a single moderator being "blamed" for what a majority collective decided not all that long ago is not at all correct. Basically if you want this page to exist, substantial notoriety has to be sourced. Drowz0r (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that a RfD shouldn't be closed by someone who contributed an opinion. My comment was directed at Wikimandia closing the above discussion and deciding the outcome. That is why I asked for it to be referred to Admin. The number of editors who supported or opposed is not the point; I wouldn't close this as I have been involved, so I ask for someone disinterested to close it. I await the decision from WP:ANI. Btljs (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that was nicely swept under the carpet wasn't it. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikimandia isn't the only person who can make unilateral decisions. Wales Green Party remains until someone neutral makes a decision. Btljs (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Language in article and general tone throughout
The article has some very serious tone issues, the article is at points coming actoss as the "establishment vs" in nature. This is not on. This was shown by the now removed section under election results, where the First Past the Post system was criticised. This article is not for opinions, or attacks.

The language is also of questionable neutrality, words used like "Progressive" and phrasing such as "party's primary emphasis" are not neutral. They are also confusing and reduce access to the article for the lay reader and editor.

This article needs to be a neutral and objective overview of the Green Party of England and Wales. It must not be in anway pro or anti. It must also not promote or attack the part, other enteritis, or anything else for that matter, for example voting systems, other political parties, specific policies of the party, or specific ways the party operates.

The article needs to undergo polishing and cleaning up as per the following WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, and WP:CLEANUP.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just curious: in what way is "progressive" non-neutral? I understand it to mean "enlightened" or "reformist", which would apply to the party's approach to social policies. Is there another meaning that I'm not seeing when I google it? Saying the "party's primary emphasis" is on environmentalism and political ecology is absolutely factual. That's what "Green" stands for; it has been the primary emphasis of every Green party since the movement began. It is also absolutely factual to say that "representation at the House of Commons has been hindered by the first-past-the-post voting system", although the remainder of the sentence that was edited here was commentary. It would be fair to say that it's "representation at the House of Commons has been hindered by the first-past-the-post voting system, which favours the large parties." Scolaire (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Taking the last point first, opinion on the voting system for the house of commons is just that an opinion, which is POV. This is also an inappropriate place for those comments as this is an article on a political party for an encyclopaedia, not an opinion piece for a political magazine. The wording of the article is very important and progressive is POV, one of the words given as a meaning "Enlightened" is even more POV, saying someone is "enlightened or using a word with that meaning is making them sound superior, as opposed to those who do not hold the same opinion as them being the opposite, for example bigoted, which cannot be implied. That phrasing is synthesis and POV. Commenting on "primary focus" how is it known that the the parties primary focus is that, are there reliable independent third party sources which are current that state that this is the case, otherwise it is original research to imply that as the case.


 * Wikipeida is not a place for "fair comment" or "reasonable assumption", that is for other places, for example academic research, text books, and opinion pieces. This is an encyclopaedia and the quality of articles must be neutral in their point of view, verifiable, factually relevant, and accessible easily to all and not just those with prior, existing or expert knowledge of the subject matter. This is not an article for members of the Green Party of England and Wales, or its supporters, nor is is an article for those opposed either. This is an article which is for the factual and relevant information of the Green Party of England and Wales which meets encyclopaedic standards.


 * Sport and politics (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are making some very strong statements. Progressive is perfectly normal language in political science.  The primary point is clearly supported by the various citations.  I also simply don't understand what is confusing about the current text.   You are going to need to be more specific and back some of those opinions up  Snowded  TALK 19:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. See Progressivism for a (rather US-centric) description of what progressive means in this context. I think it would be useful if could highlight individual problem phrases and we could unpick them. Btljs (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And FPTP favouring the large parties and militating against the Greens is not just my opinion or my POV. It is a well-documented phenomenon. Here it is on the BBC website, for instance. Scolaire (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Sport and politics claims "opinion on the voting system for the house of commons is just that an opinion, which is POV." But what was being reported wasn't opinion on the voting system, so much as the implications of the voting system on one party. I'm with Scolaire: the comment about the party being hindered would is suitably encylopaedic, citing RS.  It really isn't controversial or a 'POV' amongst political scientists.


 * Similarly User:Sport and politics claims "The wording of the article is very important..." Yes. "...and progressive is POV" in one sense of the word, yes, but in the other, no.  "one of the words given as a meaning 'Enlightened' is even more POV": absolutely.  But the other sense of "progressive", as outlined in Progressivism does not have the POV implications, and if RS can be found, use would be suitably encylopaedic.  Perhaps, though, to avoid confusion between the senses of 'progressive', another word, such as 'reformist' would be more acceptable?


 * "Commenting on 'primary focus' how is it known that the the parties primary focus is that, are there reliable independent third party sources which are current that state that this is the case". I'm sure there are plenty. It is absurd contrariness to suggest that there might not be: but yes, such sources should be cited. DrArsenal (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In comment to the voting system, this article is not the place for comments of this nature, that belongs on an article relating directly to the House of Commons or the First Past the post system. The inclusion here reads as a complaint and sour grapes, it also fails WP:Relevance as it does not directly relate to the subject matter of the article, which is the Green Party of England and Wales and not the voting system or the house of commons. It is also not a place to try and bring in a multitude of justifications for it s inclusion as this may violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The BBC source while reliable, does not make the inclusion relevant to this article.


 * I will also include more examples and more specifics, in due course, I will also post this on the wider politics projects. Sport and politics (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

undent

Coming here from the request for input at WT:POLITICS, I also don't see a problem with using the word "hindered" to describe the party having a single seat (nor how it could reasonably be described as not directly related to the subject matter – it clearly is). Number  5  7  08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is that this is not really the place for commenting of how the House of commons voting system works, that belongs on the House of Commons page, Also why is only the First past the post system criticised, and not also Closed list Party Proportional representation that is used in European elections. Its cherry picking and creates a POV slant the only NPOV way of portraying that section is a history of how the party has done over the course of the elections they have contested, and not adding "these results are hindered by the system". That is not a neutral portrayal of the information, that is editorialising and POV slanting. Sport and politics (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sport and politics there is no neutral position available. Either you take the starting position of the UK with FPTP polling system as given, in which case you are right; or alternatively you take the starting position of the tendency towards development of new parties around the world since the 1970s, in which case you are wrong - against such an international comparison the slow development of GP (and UKIP/BNP/Respect) in UK is notable, relevant, and very widely attributed to FPTP by all sorts of RS that do not display POV.
 * The problem is that it is impossible to be neutral between mentioning and not mentioning. DrArsenal (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a way for including the information in the article, it is just not being done in an NPOV way. Having it in the section as it currently is, is POV. Having a separate section about ' party positions and opinions on electoral representation' would be a way of including it. This would then be able to include the information, and include the criticisms of the FPTP system and other systems, where the party have made genuine and reliably covered by third party sources, complaints and criticisms. The current method of inclusion, is an add-on and smacks of sour grapes. Sport and politics (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be true and a worthwhile suggestion if the mention was in the context of the party's position. But the context is of explaining why the Party does not have, and has not previously had, more influence on national politics through the House of Commons.  That cannot reasonably be explained to a global readership without reference to FPTP in this section. DrArsenal (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a missing of he purpose of the section, it is not to give a reason or even go in to why the party has or has not got more or less representation in the House of Commons or on any other area. That is inserting a POV and is failing WP:relevance. The purpose of that section is to provide a factual and encyclopaedic overview of the party's electoral performance. The wording being talked about (and currently included) could be added to every single party that is not the Conservative party or the Labour party, which would be wholeheartedly absurd. If it is put in this article, then it would be justifiable to easily put it in the UKIP article, the Liberal Democrats article, the Paid Cymru article, the Respect party article, the Veritas article and so on. The addition of the information says nothing more that FPTP is rigged to favour Labour and the Conservatives, which is wholly unencyclopaedic content in its current context and form. Sport and politics (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But, S&P "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ... data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.


 * You claim "The wording ... could be added to every single party that is not the Conservative party or the Labour party, which would be ...absurd. If it is put in this article, then it would be justifiable to easily put it in the UKIP article, the Liberal Democrats article, the Paid Cymru article, the Respect party article, the Veritas article" True for UKIP and LibDems, perhaps for Respect, not for SNP or Plaid Cymru, nor Veritas.  I would see the wording as wholly appropriate for similar sections of LD and UKIP articles.  Indeed, the UKIP one has a considerably longer paragraph of similar meaning, and the LDs in two separate places in theirs already.  SNP and Plaid Cymru are not disadvantaged by FPTP in anything like the same way, because they are not spread across the whole UK (indeed SNP were advantaged this year).  Veritas was insignificant and would have remained so whatever electoral system.  DrArsenal (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Please be aware the SNP have not be mentioned at all in the above piece, which goes to show that the actual writing has not been read properly and therefor not understood. This has meant that the point of what has been written has been ignored, and a pre-conceived "do not include, and disagree" however unintentional has been made before reading what has been written fully. Sport and politics (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You properly posted this to two fora to get a response and so far you are getting no support. Why not wait and see if any other editors get involved? Otherwise I think this is dead  Snowded  TALK 04:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not speculate on motives, this is not about reactions, or responses. This is about having a constructive and productive discussion, simply pointing out a response has gone off on a tangent about something not mentioned is legitimate and the above comments are not assuming good faith. Please assume good faith at all times. Sport and politics (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Getting back, the current inclusion is a bolt on which reads "I don't like the result'. That is not encyclopaedic. If the Liberal Democrats and UKIP have larger and more comprehensive section, then perhaps this article should follow suit to avoid the tone of sour grapes. Sport and politics (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No speculation on motives anywhere in my statement and nothing whatsoever that would justify you assuming a lack of good faith. At the moment you have zero support for the positions you are advancing.  That means the discussion is really dead unless other editors get involved or new arguments are advanced.  Snowded  TALK 06:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Implications of forum shopping are speculation on motives. Please discuss further on my user talk page and not here. Also just because an editor do not want to continue a discussion does not mean it i 'dead'. This is not a place where constructive discussion stops because an editor says 'this is dead'. The discussion so far has been productive a constructive. There are no sides and no winning or losing, no support, and no finite end points. Discussions will go on for as long as they naturally want to. Sport and politics (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I said that you properly posted this to other fora. The word properly means "correctly or satisfactorily" so you might want to strike those accusations.  Otherwise as far as I can see no one is supporting your position and continuing it may not make sense unless other editors get involved.  Snowded  TALK 07:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, although I disagree about POV and "sour grapes" repeated three times, I do think the statement: "As with other small parties, representation at the House of Commons has been hindered by the first-past-the-post voting system." is weak. What is actually trying to be conveyed here is that in UK parliamentary elections a party other than the main two is under-represented when seats are compared with popular vote if that vote is distributed nationwide (as opposed to regionally). "Small parties" is inaccurate; "hindered" implies we're comparing it against some other system where they would do better. That they have a larger total vote count per MP than the main two parties is NPOV, objectively measurable, well established and contains no grape products. Btljs (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording is weak and it needs strengthening, there also need to be multiple reliable sources. I still think the comments should be in a separate section and not in the current section. This is because it confuses the purpose of the section. Is it a history of the representation at different levels of the party, or is it a commentary of the voting system. If it is the second it needs to be party related and not a general criticism, as that would be very weak in relevance to the article, as this article needs to retain its focus n the Green Party of England and Wales, and not go down paths of being more for an article on the House of Commons or the First Past the Post system. Sport and politics (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Membership Numbers
Someone needs to sort out the figures being given for membership numbers. The references cited are clearly not encyclopaedic. One says there were 63,000 a month ago. Another says Natalie Bennet led the party to a membership of 60,000. The current reference from the Guardian seems to me to be a short-hand approximation, but whether it is or isn't it's not a primary reference Gordon (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a primary reference. Preferably, it should be a from a secondary reliable source, which the Guardian is. As you've said, the Guardian number is probably an approximation, but that is fine as the membership number will be changing all the time. It's also a very recent number: If you look at the Labour Party membership it dates from January and the UKIP membership is a year old! Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 17:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to add my two cents, the membership figure from the Green Party members only website is actually ~58,000. The Guardian figure is far closer to the real figure than the ~65,000 peak. Tiny beets 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny beets (talk • contribs)

2018 Update: Any sources for the graphic that would show 2017 and 2018's membership figures? There leadership election is close so there maybe an official figure soon. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove anti-unionism from the info box
I don't think this should be in the ideology section. The GPEW has no jurisdiction in Scotland. The Scottish Green Party is a totally independent party. While the GPEW may have a view, it is not something they seek to enact change on by winning in elections. Helper201 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Amelia Womack for deletion
Editors of this page might be interested in discussing the proposed deletion of this article.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amelia Womack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Amelia Womack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CarlDurose (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Left or right
Why does this article describe the Green Party as a left-wing part, when a motto of this party was "Neither left, nor right, but out front"? Vorbee (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because sources independent of the party have described it as left-wing. I note such references have been appropriately included in the infobox. The very reasonable argument, I suppose, is that you should use sources independent of the organization Klbrain (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was interested in this as the only reference I can find to "Neither left, nor right but out in front" is the Australian Greens. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8500.12304 147.161.166.125 (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Title — rename?
The Party isn't actually called "The Green Party of England and Wales" — seems that is often used unofficially, to distinguish from the Scottish Green Party. But the Green Party's own Constitution, its website, its electoral imprint, and its registration with the Electoral Commission, use simply "The Green Party". How do others feel about renaming the article? (Presumbaly adding "(UK)" as with the UK Labour and Conservative parties, for examples, would work best.) – Kieran T  (' talk ') 21:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see there might be a rationale under WP:COMMONNAME, but presumably we would have to add "(England and Wales)" because it is not the UK-wide Green Party. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Welsh independence
The infobox has had Welsh independence listed as part of the party's ideology. has removed this, arguing in the EC, "The party voted to campaign in favour of seceding from the United Kingdom in the event that a referendum is held on Welsh independence. There is no Welsh independence referendum that is scheduled to be held and there is no indication that they will being actively campaigning for independence otherwise. This is only in the event that a Welsh independence referendum is held." This seems to me to be splitting hairs: the party favours Welsh independence, the details of precisely how you achieve that notwithstanding. I thus reverted. Helper201 re-removed, saying, "The conference specifically opted to word it in the event of a future referendum. They could've just said the party commits to supporting Welsh independence if that's what they wanted to stand for."

O other editors, help us settle this! In or out? Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally would keep this out of the article, unless their position on the issue has been widely-discussed outside of the party's own sources. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Have to agree about keeping it out until reliable external sources are identified, at least. If it were an article about Welsh Independence, it might be relevant to list parties that are broadly in support. But in an article about a party that hasn't been shown, with references, to be outspoken on the issue, it seems a little odd to give it the prominence of the infobox. Just a thought though, have we any Welsh speakers involved here who could see what the coverage of this point is like in Welsh-language media, where the party's representatives in Wales might well give rather more attention to this? 2A00:23C6:ED89:7900:5571:FC35:20C1:7C6B (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good points. Thanks, both. I do not speak Welsh, but some recent English-language coverage of the Greens' position includes:


 * : "The Welsh Green Party say it "supports the aspiration for an independent and fully democratic Wales, bringing decision making to those people most affected by those decisions"."
 * : Headline, "An ‘independent’ Wales Green Party is ‘inevitable’, says leader"
 * : Headline, "Senedd Election 2021: Green Party manifesto promises free university degrees, clean transport and Welsh independence"
 * : "The leader of Wales’ Green Party has said that he has joined YesCymru, the cross-party group campaigning for Welsh independence. He said that he considered independence a “vital step” towards building a “greener and fairer Wales”. It comes after the Green Party of England and Wales announced support for a Welsh independence referendum at the beginning of last month."
 * These articles were in the context of the recent Senedd elections. So, not a lot of coverage, but certainly some reliable secondary sourcing. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's some Welsh-language coverage of a similar nature:, , Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO that seems sufficient coverage to include. I agree with the initial point about splitting hairs; if they are consistently described as supporting Welsh independence (regardless of specific mechanisms), as they are, that should be included. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with including the claim in this infobox. Stating that an independent Wales is inevitable is not saying one wishes Wales to become independent. Also, the wording “supports the aspiration” is ambiguous and like the claim in general falls foul of WP:SYNTH. Most sources also explicitly refer to the devolved branch of the Wales Green Party as supporting Welsh independence, not the Green Party of England and Wales. Therefore, if the ideology is to go anywhere it would far more be suited to that Wikipedia page than this one. However, there has been prior agreement to include right to self-determination there which is in place of this. Helper201 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there's any WP:SYNTH. "Green Party manifesto promises [...] Welsh independence" is clear. I don't see a reason to use "self-determination" when sources talk about "independence". I can see there might be a reason for this to be on Welsh Green Party rather than here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The synth issue is in relation to the wording of the policy itself wherein it says this is in the event of a referendum and does not say they will be actively supporting it otherwise. The replacement of self-determination with Welsh independence on the Wales Green Party page I'd see reason for but not adding it here. Helper201 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:SYNTH is that we can't do the interpreting: we leave that to reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources say the Greens support independence. If you feel the wording of the policy does not support that, then you're putting your interpretation of a primary source document above a secondary source, and Wikipedia's epistemology is clear here. Reliable secondary sources take precedence. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that explicitly and specifically states in its policy that this is in the event that a referendum is held, a condition which has not occurred. Helper201 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I might, that's you interpreting a primary source. Wikipedia is very, very, very, very clear here: we prefer to have the interpreting done by reliable secondary sources. We have reliable secondary sources that have done that, and they think it is appropriate to summarise the Greens' policy as supporting Welsh independence. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see what I'm interpreting here, I'm just stating what the party policy is. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. On a separate note, I still think this ideology is much more suited to the Wales Green Party page if it is to go anywhere. Helper201 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated this in the infobox on both pages following the discussion here. Regards. --RaviC (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A consensus has not yet been reached. While I disagree with the ideology being added on either page I think at a minimum a fair compromise is keeping it to the Wales Green Party page. Helper201 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source itself, but this tweet is pretty clear in its support for Welsh independence, and that's from the official Green Party account. The only source I found that includes this quote is Nation Cymru which I don't think is reliable, so I don't think the quote is citeable unless we can cite a tweet? NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. We can, in some circumstances, cite an organisation's own tweets under WP:PRIMARY, and it's reassuring to see that confirmation, but we much prefer to cite reliable secondary sources. Why do you think Nation Cymru is not reliable? We do also have citations above from the BBC and Walesonline, both of which I think are reliable. So I think it's clear that reliable secondary sources say the party supports Welsh independence. It certainly makes sense, then, to include that information in the Wales Green Party article's infobox. The question is whether it should also be included in the infobox here. I think there is support for that in the discussion above, but note 's concern as to whether we have truly reached consensus. Further comments welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I assumed from their name and that particular article that Nation Cymru would lean heavily towards Welsh nationalism which may make citing them, in this case, iffy. Though I'm just sticking my nose in here, I am not familiar with Nation Cymru or Welsh nationalism in general. Based on the points raised above and the Tweet I shared however, personally, I would support inclusion in the infobox. Agreed that WalesOnline and BBC News are reliable. Unless someone else shares material that states otherwise I think it's fair to say the Green Party supports both a referendum, and Welsh independence itself. NemesisAT (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's at least two reliable media sources and a primary source which show the party supports Welsh independence. Helper's argument seems to be based on semantics and is somewhat unconvincing. --RaviC (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My argument is based upon the original wording of the party's policy which members specifically chose the wording of. If the party wanted to simply say it supports Welsh independence outright and would campaign for that, they'd do so. However, they decided to specifically word the policy - of which the secondary sources are using to run with the claim of Welsh independence - as being specifically if/when a referendum is held. They wouldn't add that part in for no reason.


 * On the basis of where to put it, this is a separate argument. I think it is far more applicable and relevant to the Wales Green Party page over this one. This issue itself has not been commented upon by others. It was the devolved Wales Green Party that came up with this policy and as said its far more relevant there. Helper201 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I missed it earlier, if you haven't already could you share a link to the relevant party policy? I'm not sure what to make of Green Party written policy however as last time I checked, they supported in principle a new north-south high-speed railway line but opposed High Speed 2, which is exactly that. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is, as I understand it, making two separate points and I think the discussion keeps missing that. I hope I am not mischaracterising your position, Helper201!
 * Point 1 is over the wording of the policy. This argument has not attracted any support. Wikipedia clearly favours WP:SECONDARY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources. We have secondary sources: there is no need for us to parse how they worded their policy document.
 * Point 2 is the suggestion that Welsh independence should be noted in the Wales Green Party article's infobox but not in this article's infobox. I think it warrants mention in both, but can see that this is up for debate. The opinion of other editors on this point would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the party's official policy - - "We will campaign for Wales to secede from the United Kingdom in any future referendum." This is also explicitly stated twice in a secondary source -  - “That’s why we’ll campaign for independence in a referendum on Wales’ place in the UK.” + At that time, the Welsh branch of the party said “In the event of a referendum on Welsh independence, the Wales Green Party commits to campaigning in favour of seceding from the United Kingdom.” So we have first and secondary sources supporting that this is only in the event of a future referendum, of which none is currently scheduled to take place. Helper201 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do see the point that it seems to be the Welsh Green Party campaigning for independence, rather than the Green Party of England and Wales. I'm now not so sure whether it should be included in the infobox. The tweet I shared suggests the Green Party of England and Wales endorses the Welsh Green Party's position on independence, but it would be good to have more sources talking about GPEW rather than the Welsh Green Party. NemesisAT (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * THe Wales Green Party is part of the GPEW, so this argument doesn't make sense. The party as a whole agrees that it is in favour of Welsh independence, and that's quite a significant constitutional stance to take. --RaviC (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Leadership in July 2021
Not sure if the leaders have resigned, or if they only lose their positions after a leadership election, but both have annoucned their intentions to resign in July 2021. From Jack. 14:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of herbicides
I am a gardener. Maintaining is much easier and cheaper, when herbizides are allowed. What is your opinion?

Trident nuclear program
wouldn't it be better to have this point to Trident (UK nuclear programme) rather than to a redirect? I understand that pointless edits are annoying, but I don't think it's worth edit warring over. NemesisAT (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is operated by blocked user Harry the house. Several of us are reverting his edits which are repetitive attacks on the same group of articles. See his SPI case (via the link) for information. If you want to alter the Trident link, that's fine, but we cannot allow any of this vandal's edits to remain unchallenged. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Eco-socialism / socialism in the UK template
Hi all, it would be great to have a community consensus on whether to include eco-socialism as an aspect of the EW Green Party within its infobox?

Additionally, would it be helpful to include this party within the "socialism in the UK" subject template?

I am happy to take a lead on whatever direction this group decides upon :D Jamzze (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I have used the Scottish Greens as a style convention for displaying "factions" and labeling eco-socialism under this instead of placing it within the main ideology section. Jamzze (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Claims should not break WP:SYNTH. The reliable source needs to explicitly state whatever claim is being made. Helper201 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Helper201 I have added a direct link within this faction section to the eco-socialist group of the GP EW. Jamzze (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am not sure you took the time to read the reference attached.
 * "[The] Green Left, an explicitly ecosocialist network in the Green Party of England and Wales, has been working hard to move the party leftward since it was founded in 2006. Its founding meeting adopted the Headcorn declaration, which outlined the mission of the organization and its commitment to ecosocialism". Wall (2010). Jamzze (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies regarding the faction, my bad. We still have no consensus for adding the socialism template though and no evidence that the party is socialist as a whole beyond this faction. Helper201 (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As currently displaying, the infobox only lists eco-socialism as a faction. That seems to me demonstrable. The infobox is not making any claim that the party is socialist as a whole. So, all OK? Bondegezou (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My position wasn't opposing having eco-socialism listed in the infobox as a faction if it was cited as such, just that the socialism template/sidebar should not be added to the page unless the party as a whole can be cited as socialist or eco-socialist (or another variant of socialism). Helper201 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah -- thanks for explaining. Yes, I would agree with that for now (subject to what further citations are produced, of course). Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

LGBTQIA+ Vs LGBTIQA+
These two orderings of the initialism are used interchangeably in this article. Usually I might change them to consistently be LGBTQIA+, as seen in the info box and is the conventional order, however frequent use of LGBTIQA+ has made me believe there may be a reason for this rather than a simple mis-spelling. ADM.Tetanus (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Party colour
One of the codes for the party's colour is not working. It is defaulting to white when it should be green, as seen in the infobox. Consequently, this means all connected pages like ones for elections and opinion polls the wrong colour is being shown for the party with it appearing as white instead of green. Can someone return "party color|Green Party of England and Wales (2023)" to the colour and shade of green it previously was before it defaulted to white? I'm not sure how to do this. Helper201 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas in info box
I fail to see why Caroline Lucas is listed as the party's MP in the info box. I have removed this. The fact the Greens have an MP is included further down (1/650). Kalamikid (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Party Representation Map
In the local representation section the map now represented data more than 5 years old. I believe it needs to be updated or deleted from the article. Localelectionsnerd (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wings
As pointed out by, there is no mention of Green Party Women as a “wing” of the party in the article body. The infobox is to summarise, not supplant, key information from the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cambial Yellowing Green Party Women is stated in Green Party of England and Wales. If the requirment is strictly semantics to such that them not being refered to as "wings" specificly voids them from infobox inclusion, then surely that means dozens of party infoboxes are wrong due to the political party in question refereing to such groups as "affilates" and "socialist societies"? Bejakyo (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)