Talk:Green party/Archive02

Message for 213.38.124.94
Please take a moment to read what Wikipedia is not, amongst other things, it's not a collection of external links. Either write articles on the individual parties (or at least stubs) or include the external links on the main page. Please stop adding articles with only the external links in them.

Also, please use the "show preview" button and stop saving the page after every spelling error you correct. this makes for long page history, making it annoying for users and unnecesseraly draining server resources. Zocky 18:09 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Zocky, try doing what I just did: move the link into a larger, more important article; then, replace the stub with something like  --Uncle Ed


 * It shouldn't be a redirect, it'll just send people back to this article, creating an effective loop-back link, which we don't want. Zocky 18:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Any reason all the instance of "green" and "party" are bolded in most of the text? :S -- Sam


 * Too many people hacking it and moving it around, likely, style got short shrift.

---

This article is simply titled incorrectly. These are the "big-G" Green parties, and so they are known everywhere in the world. Capitalization is significant in this case as it implies a proper name and identification. In fact when you hear the term Green Party" you almost always are hearing a reference to the local parties at whatever level (municipal, regional/state, or federal government). So the correct nomenclature would go like this:

The Green parties, plural, referring to the globally cooperating parties in this article. Capitalization significant and used throughout the text. Since one never refers to multiple parties without encountering this common mandate, i.e. all non-Green green parties are leftovers or spinoffs, the plural is the right term. Two green parties is always, so far as anyone sees, two Green parties. Whereas one can just be a

green party, singular, referring to the general mandate of ecology and environmentalism, and making very clear that these do not always imply the Ten Key Values of the Green Party as understood by the "Green parties".

GlobalGreens, plural, signifying the cooperative infrastructure of the Green parties (not the green parties) - this is not accepted or ratified by all Green parties and the means of global cooperation on key issues and making simultaneous policy must be covered on its own in an article that you aren't forced to read if you want to know about the key values, etc. They are at GlobalGreens web site and it's easy to tell that they are Green not green parties.

This problem has arisen only because of the stupid lack of ability to differentiate capitalization for proper names, which is absolutely essential in a dictionary (like wiktionary) and for cases like this where there is a proper and generic version of the same name.

_____ I am the guilty party: 212.23.124.94 I am really embarrassed. I imagined that I was 'word procesing' on my own, and that likely no-one would even read the page for some time. I didn't realise that every correction or change would be a nuisance, and use up the server. I apologise. I did that partly from ignorance, and partly because it happens I am overriding a headache the whole time and it's just the way I am used to coping with it, by thinking of things bit by bit as they occur to me.

But as to the web sites, I started by putting them into the text in single square brackets. But someone went through and changed them to double square brackets. So I thought 'OK, I can go with that. If that is preferred, then I will put the references at one click removed.' I felt that each claim should be referenced, to show that it is true. But now I have made you guys cross by doing that as well. I thought at first maybe it was an automatic process, sorry about that.

I found it hard to reference the text - for instance, where the 'First Global Gathering' reference now goes.

I hate making people angry. This Wikipedia thing is too hard. I will leave you in peace.

hey, don't take it so bad. Everybody is making mistakes one time or another. Especially at first. You broke nothing. It is no such big deal ! Maybe would it be good to identify yourself, so people can complain to you more quickly when you make a mistake. But that's a technical issue that it is not possible to talk easily to anom. The server load is not really related to the number of time you saved, but to the time it takes to load the history of the article. You made quite a lot of save, so it takes a very long time to watch the article history now. But that's not a disaster, no ? Try to use the show preview button more often maybe. As for the external, I was also wondering what you were doing :-) Usually, we try to put external links only at the bottom of the article. We don't put an endless number of them but rather to incorporate the material in the article. External links may be something like "to know more". But, take it easy. Don't get stop by grumpy people :-) Cheer up

Way to many Green parties ;-)
Hi, maybe we should try to sort out what is to be placed here, and what belongs to Green party. And maybe there are some more articles in that field. -- till we *) 17:40, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

P.S.: As a starting point, I began a List of Green party issues. till we *)

Merge of Green parties articles
But Tillwe, with the merge, now, some principles of the Green Parties are imposed upon the other green parties. green parties are just left a tiny paragraph at the top, and all the principles are beneath Green Parties. This is bad ! And to my opinion, very biaised in "favor" of Green Parties.


 * I know that, and I hope that it will change. But I don't think separate articles are the right thing (who ever you are -- if you have a look at the history, both of the merged articles contained lengthy sections discussing the differences between G and g).


 * What I did was to take the "green parties" article and the WWGP article, put them in a text editor, delete redundant sections and tried to find a good way to organize them. There could be more about small-g green parties (even if I'm not that convinced that they are that important, but let's try to NPOV this the wikipedia way - in one article), there could be more about the history and so on. But the reader (and we should keep him or her in mind) now will find one overview article about small/large g greens, not many which contradict each other. I hope we can turn this into one well written and informative article -- together.


 * --till we *) 23:46, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I understand. I will see that in 2004 a bit perhaps.

Right now, considering that
 * this whole content was clearly written essentially from the pov of a Green Party member
 * the green parties are left aside in most of the article, to the point the title of it sound unfit
 * some principles to which some green parties agree, are here identified as Green Party values only (for example the Four pillars)
 * some sentences such as "Typically these 'small-g greens' do not support the Green parties in all particulars, but are movements or factions within existing or established political parties. "
 * the current article is nearly entirely focusing on english speaking world
 * that there are apparently only two big divisions in the world, the english speaking countries, and the developping world, in which are also discussed western countries, such as France, Germany and Italy, usually been considered part of the developped nations
 * that a long list of Green Parties is there, and none green parties
 * that most references and external links are about Green Parties

I will put a non neutral heading to mark this article as such for the innocent reader :-) PomPom


 * Hi Anthere, I hope that some of these reasons for dispute will go away given some time. I.e., I will work on some of them. But one reason most of the article is about Green Parties is, as far as I can see, not going to change: there are much more Green Parties in the sense of being organized along the same principles and part of the Global Greens or the continental federations etc. etc. than there are other green parties. As you said rightly, I am a member of a big Big-G-Party (German Green Party, to be exact) -- but most of the article wasn't written by me, only reorganized. I think that NPOV wasn't given before, but only was not so visible because of the separation of articles. Anyways, I would be happy if you could for example add some small-g-parties to the lists at the end. I deleted the USA Liberal Nazi Green Party (or what their name was), because they are fringe of the fringe and not green in any sense. -- till we *) 00:20, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

I entirely agree it was a problem previously as well :-) I will try to add some stuff when I am back from holidays. French parties are much more atomized than german ones as I understood. The two biggest I think are the MEI (Waechter) : http://www.mei-fr.org/, And GE (Lalonde) http://www.generation-ecologie.com/. Both are not the Green Party, though both leaders were involved in the Green Party at some point, they are certainly not only relying *just* on environmentalism.


 * Problem is, the only "real" (i.e. usable) measurement for what a G-Party is seems to be the membership in GlobalGreens or one of the Federations. (Typically for the unorganized and chaotic bunch greens are ;-)). Another measurement would be the relative size of a party. Take the example of Germany (votes at Bundestagswahl 2002):

GRÜNE      2693794  (German Green Party) ödp          56593  (conservative split, left Die Grünen                        in the 1980s) Tierschutz    8858  (a single-issue party on animal rights)


 * Then there are some other splits (like Ökolinx or Regenbogen, both rather more to the left than Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and local splits, but also some free local lists which cooperate with Bündnis 90/Die Grünen.


 * As a member of a Big-G-green-party, I'd say only Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (GRÜNE) is a Green party. ödp, Ökolinx and Tierschutz party could be seen as different kinds of green parties, but on the other hand, they aren't that important that they should be included in a global encyclopedia. I don't know about the size of the French G/green parties, but IIRC, Les Verts is far bigger than the splits (or did they re-unificate for a time and split again lately?). In other countries, like the Netherlands, there is GroenLinks and De Groennen, both member parties of the EFGP. One of the two bigger USA green parties is much more influential than the other. And so on. Also, in the last years one could see a tendency for growing together and forming of a specific green identity. The pan-green European elections campaign (with different national logos and different national key issues, but created by one advertising firm!) will catalyze this process again, at least in Europe.


 * I think it more important from an encyclopedic point of view to bring most of the attention to the larger and more influential parties (at least on the global level, fr.wikipedia.org is something else). If this is right, an article about green parties worldwide should inform the reader about "the" Green parties (and their values, and their histories, and ...), and only a small part should inform the reader about the existence of other parties which could be included in the green movement. I'm not sure if this is NPOV enough, but I find it fairly straightforward (but maybe this is biased from a German point of view). -- till we *) 01:35, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

''Problem is, the only "real" (i.e. usable) measurement for what a G-Party is seems to be the membership in GlobalGreens or one of the Federations. (Typically for the unorganized and chaotic bunch greens are ;-)).''

Another measurement would be the relative size of a party.
 * measurements could be numbers of members. Number of votes at recent elections. Number of members who are in a government held by a green party, or as part of a coalition, number of members elected in a parlement such as the european one. And perhaps weight as lobbyists, in case one party was recognised the leader of a successful achievement ;-)

''As a member of a Big-G-green-party, I'd say only Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (GRÜNE) is a Green party. ödp, Ökolinx and Tierschutz party could be seen as different kinds of green parties, but on the other hand, they aren't that important that they should be included in a global encyclopedia.''


 * I support inclusiveness. In an encyclopedia were you may find articles for villages made of 10 totally unknown inhabitants, or the latest (bad) game of a remote company, I think any party officially recognised as a party has its place. If that party exist, there is potential that a reader is interested in knowning specificities of that party.


 * Now, if their impact on political decision is minor, obviously, for the sake of clarity, they should not be included in a general article on greens parties and movements. Clearly, only those who really matter should be. For that reason, I think the list at the bottom of the article is inappropriate here. It would be better than only big or influent parties are listed here, and that a separate article list *all* existing ones.

I don't know about the size of the French G/green parties, but IIRC, Les Verts is far bigger than the splits (or did they re-unificate for a time and split again lately?).


 * they split, they unify, they split again, they reunify again.... And it is hard to talk of the others as merely "splits" since some of them were founded quite a while ago. Before the current G-Party. They are not splits (which to my opinion implies separation from a bigger one), they are others. This is very messy ;-)

''In other countries, like the Netherlands, there is GroenLinks and De Groennen, both member parties of the EFGP. One of the two bigger USA green parties is much more influential than the other. And so on. Also, in the last years one could see a tendency for growing together and forming of a specific green identity. The pan-green European elections campaign (with different national logos and different national key issues, but created by one advertising firm!) will catalyze this process again, at least in Europe. ''


 * I am still waiting to see "unification" in France. Even the Green Party itself is everything but unification...:-) In case you followed past years fights ;-) But you are right that it is the party which has most influence. Though...it mostly had under Gauche Plurielle, but now is quite excluded from the political scenary. Hopefully, they influence more on the european level. However...it depends of what you name "influence" and whether that influence should express itself by independant power or not. There are some parties certainly less influent as such, that are making coalition with right wing party. May we say that the bigger Green Party on the left and not in the government is more influencial than a smaller one participating to the current right wing governement ? Which one is the most important ? The bigger ones with little power, and the smaller one part of a non-green government ?

''I think it more important from an encyclopedic point of view to bring most of the attention to the larger and more influential parties (at least on the global level, fr.wikipedia.org is something else). If this is right, an article about green parties worldwide should inform the reader about "the" Green parties (and their values, and their histories, and ...), and only a small part should inform the reader about the existence of other parties which could be included in the green movement. I'm not sure if this is NPOV enough, but I find it fairly straightforward (but maybe this is biased from a German point of view). -- till we *) 01:35, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)''
 * yes and no :-)
 * Yes, this article should stay global. It should focus on principles shared, impact of all these mouvements in current politics world wide, and on how some parties decided to unite. To my opinion, it should show what is shared, much more than what is not shared.
 * But if 95% of this article is about Green Parties and only 5% for other mouvements, then we should make two articles to be more honest, because the title is misrepresenting what is in the article. I do not support this. If the principles of these smaller mouvements are claimed to be only those of the Green Parties, then this is unfair representation of what reality is. The current article is totally misrepresenting non Green mouvements principles and impact. I think that in France, it is precisely because all green people are dispersed in dozen of parties that influence is not very impressive. In some parts of the country, the Greens are more influencial, in other parts, this is other mouvements. We really have dozens. It is possible that we are a unique situation, and that in the rest of the world, only Green Parties matter, but I tend to disbelieve that.
 * I also see that in France at least, Green Party is sitting quite well on the political spectrum. Very much on the left. We often say Greens are like water melons, green outside, and red inside. If they want to really impact, they have either to succeed to get leadership (doubts) or to form a coalition with the socialists and communists. That means they entirely let free all the centrist and right side of the political spectrum. That place is quite well occupied by several others mouvements and parties, either centrists, or right, or apolitically positionned (hummm, whatever that means). In short, when the governement is on the right, the Greens are basically nobody.


 * The last point is about that comment "at least on the global level, fr.wikipedia.org is something else". Are you saying that the english wikipedia is "the global level" while fr is just a branch, just suitable to represent reality in France and other french speaking countries. Are you saying that en: as being the global level should not talk of specificities, only focus on what is global, and that users willing to find national informations should go on smaller wikipedias ? If so, I think I strongly disagree with you here Till we.
 * First because the english wikipedia is not meant to be more global than the french wikipedia. It has the chance to benefit from editors from more places, that is all. The french wikipedia goal should also be to be global, just as the english, even if that is much harder. We, french readers, deserve global information just as english do. A global article there make just as much sense than a global article here.
 * Second because just as french speaking should be offered global information, english speakers should be offered local information about other countries. If you restrict articles about national parties, to those language-specific wikipedias, then you restrict the information offered to the english reader, who may not necessarily speak that local language. If an information is important in one part of the world, it should be available to the other parts of the world. Just knowledge counts.


 * Ideally, I consider that an article on a topic, should contain the same type of information, whatever the language. Not a translation, as each language and culture has its way to explain things, but definitly the content should be quite similar. If an english wikipedia article is global, and forgetting those smaller parties, perhaps less influential at a global scale, while its equivalent french focus on the french minor political parties and mouvements instead of giving the global picture, then there is an error. Because there is no reason the representation of facts, or reality, should be so different, just because of a langage issue. If the representation of reality is different depending on language, then either we do not share the same reality, or the articles are failing to represent the reality.


 * that is perhaps a bit aside the issue...but that explains why to my opinion, this article is baised, and why the english wikipedia could very well welcome articles about GE or MEI :-)


 * May we first start from moving all the links to political parties and mouvements, Greens and other ecologist parties in a separate article, where all will be welcome ? User:anthere

Organizational scheme & masterplan ;-)
Only a short answer because I do this from work: What I like to have is these family of articles (at the end of each I have noted what kind of article I would like to see if this wasn't greens, but conservativs or communists, in double brackets):


 * Green politics - about the ideology of green and/or Green parties and movements en detail (but en general, describing the points most green parties have the same position on, and marking where individual parties or groups of parties differ). ((Conservativism / Communism))


 * Agreed. Currently, the article is mostly about Green politics, on which point some green parties agree as well. Perhaps might it been worth to mostly keep it that way, but essentially identify those points that are not widely shared.


 * Green movement - about the broader political movement that could be called green, which consists for me in the unique combination of environmental, feminist, citizen rights, solidarity and peace movements and which is historically locateable as starting in the 1970s (in different countries). Should include hints that there is a green politic outside of parliaments and parties. Could be the same as the Greens article (which is centered on personal political identity rather than on the formation as a movement, but goes in the same direction). ((I don't know / Communist movement/Workers Movement))


 * sounds like a good prop


 * Worldwide green parties/Green party/... - One article about green politics organized in the form of parties. Should include: history, important political issues and positions, info about the organization on the global level, links to lists with all green parties, and some info about the (country-specific) differences between different green parties and Green Parties and Green parties and so on. The article should answer the question what a Green party is (on a global level), where it differs from conservative, socialist and so on parties, why there are Green parties and should link to further information on details of the politics, on the broader Green movement, and on specific green parties. The name Green party (and all it's case-specific synonyms would be the best), historically worldwide green parties was the most informative article so I took that as a starting point. ((Conservative party/Communist party))


 * Agreed. Plus strong links (well identified) on all other relevant articles.


 * List of Green party issues (should also be accesible as List of green party issues) and should be a kind of coherent and complete index to every wikipedia article that has some relation to green parties, green movements, green politics, green politcians and so on. Could also be used (see: List of Green party issues) as a complete link of each and every green and Green party in every country of the world, as long as it gets a wikipedia entry.


 * the article should be at List of green party issues. It is more general.


 * Special articles about green individuals, specific green parties, things like the EFGP and Global Greens etc. ((De'Gaulle / Communist party of ... / 2nd Internationale))


 * Agreed. Perhaps could we have a list of personalities important in green politics. I know it is not as true in other countries, but at least in France, there still are very charismatic (well, some wish they to be more charismatic) leaders. This is due to the political construction, with election of a president by all voters, not representant.

-- till we *) 15:18, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

The general scheme you propose sounds good to me. I will only have tiny spots of time till beginning of january. I was also thinking that the current article needs to have less english world influence. Given that you are german and part of it, I think you should add to the article a good deal about the german party and what it is to be an actor in a government. ant

POV / NPOV
Maybe we should now start to work with the POV / NPOV issue, so that the POV msg could be removed some day soon for real. I'm not in Wikipedialand for the next four or five days, but that shouldn't stop us -- for example you, Anthere? -- to make a proposal how we could reach the goal of -- as I would define it -- creating one unified article about what G/green P/parties are, that is NPOV. Above it was written that I should add about German green party, but I don't think that would solve the POV problem. What is necessary to solve it (and please don't propose: an article for every green party and this page only a list)? -- till we *) 22:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

that is true that we still have this on the fire ....

Okay...I'll try to begin to think about it (no, the last option is *not* an option ihmo, greens are trying to get unified, not separated). I'll go slowly as I have other things on the fire. And I just realised I forgot to sent the press release to the GP mailing list...

I put it on my list next to the pastilla recipe. SweetLittleFluffyThing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Anthere&diff=0&oldid=2559043

Later :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

My little critique!
Apart from some grammar tidy ups, I added some critique of green policies and ideology. I felt the article lacked a bit

I think the section on specific Green parties needs changed, although I didn't have time to do it tonight. I don't know that the English, Scots and Irish Green Parties belong in a generalised section of Greens in the English speaking world, given the creation of the European Greens.

I'm not a Green, so I hope my criticisms have been firm but fair!Gerry Lynch 23:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The critique section looks okay to me (even if a clearer definition of who critizes would be helpful, i.e. is this critique coming from other parties -- to the left or to the right of Greens, is it critique out of the environmental movement, the establishment, ...). -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 14:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

German Green Party / First green party?
I reverted the German Green Party = First green party assumption, because as far as I know, the Tasmanian Greens are older. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 20:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the mention of "The Small Party" in Canada gives the impression that it emerged in the early 1970s. Elizabeth May's (leader of the Green Party of Canada) bio says that the Small Party was organized for the 1980 election. From http://www.elizabethmay.ca/bio.htm: "In the 1980 federal election, I organized the precursor of the Green Party...a new political party. We called it the “small party,” so named both because we were small and because we drew our inspiration from the book, Small is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher. By the close of nominations, there were sixteen small party candidates in six provinces. (small party organizers went on to form what is now the Green Party of Canada)." 209.217.83.39 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Robots
What policy do green parties have on robots? Edward 14:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a unified green policy on robots; it would depend not only on which green party (i.e. the US one, the German one, the Swedish one etc.), but also on what you mean with robots -- industrial robots (i.e. rationalization, automatization, so it is an issue off work and economy), or robots in general (means: technology and science policy), or futuristic robots with intelligence (human rights)? -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 22:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask is that Robot says Green Parties are against robot competitions. "The worldwide Green Parties in 2002 were asking for public input on extending their existing policies against such competition, as part of more general biosafety and biosecurity concerns." I wonder what the outcome was.

Campus Greens
This page lacks information about the United States based University/college and high school based Green Parties called the "Campus Greens." I lack the time to write the article, however, further information may be found at http://www.campusgreens.org/home.htm
 * Shouldn't that be at an article about Greens in the USA? Gangulf 12:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say that, too. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 17:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Social Democracy
Social Democracy plays a big role in the Green parties see Green Party (United States) Michaelm 17:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NZ Green Party did not form part of the government

 * (where for one parliamentary term they were part of the national Government),

I believe this is incorrect. I believe they supported the Labour/Progressives minority government on confidence and supply for about a year of this parliamentary term. They also supported the Labour/Alliance minority government for the 46th New Zealand Parliament. The editor is probably confusing support on confidence and supply with being part of a coalition. Coalition &mdash; in New Zealand constitutional practice &mdash; involves a coalition agreement and representation in cabinet.

One more thing: if an edited statement is reinstated I'd recommend avoiding the term national to describe the Government. In New Zealand a National Government is a government involving the New Zealand National Party, which which the Greens are unlikely to form a coalition.

Ben Arnold 22:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Eurosceptic Green Parties
It says that the Irish Green Party is the only eurosceptic party, however I feel that the Green Party of England and Wales is fairly Eurosceptic, until the mid to late 1990's, it was against the EU and only until Darren Johnson became one of the leading figures of the party that they decided to move to support it (with radical changes), however it has some very strong anti-Europeans such as Caroline Lucas.159753 22:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Green Parties in the English-speaking world
The original text here was a rambling mess, so that it was impossible to tell what level of representation has been achieved. Is it Continent, Nation/State/Province, county/city? For example, the position in NZ was completely vague, but now it just says local government (city or county level) which, reading the above, is probably wrong. Hopefully I've organised it a bit more clearly so that it is at least easy to correct. --Red King 00:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first bit is wrong.

"In English-speaking countries, Green Parties face electoral systems that have traditionally disadvantaged smaller parties, and a culture which has not been subject to invasion or colonization by others" It seems to state that the English-speaking world all uses first-past-the-post, which New Zealand does not. Furthermore, NZ, Australia, US, Canada are all migrant countries which have faced massive colonisation. --Midnight tonight 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A darker shade of green
A while back I read a "What if" article in New Scientist. A darker shade of Green. I just remembered it today, so I did a quick search of what I remembered, and it was amasing what I was able to dig up: There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore.
 * Animal rights ,
 * Environmentalism, , ,
 * Kraft durch Freude The well-being of the working classes.
 * Public health (Antismoking campaigns, asbestos restrictions, occupational health and safety standards)

Funny, some of them seem to remind me of another party program, I wonder if there's any connection.... What is known of the origins of the movement? --Stor stark7 Talk 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Electoral success
Does anyone think a section in the article in conern to the electoral success of Green parties would be a good adition to the article? And by that I mean a section saying which Green parties won seats in legislatures or a decent amount of the popular vote in elections, etc. Sima Yi 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Fishal 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Move content
It seems like we're still basically following the "master plan" of Tillwe from back in 2003. Here's what I'm about to do: it seems more logical to me to put most of the content on the history of the Green movement in the Green movement article rather than here. The revised "plan," according to my suggestion, would be this:
 * Green politics, covering the ideology and ideals of the Greens. (Analogue: feminism)
 * Green movement, looking at the movement which began in the 1970s, including the history, growth, and adaptations, and currents of Green ideas. (Analogue: Feminist movement)
 * Worldwide green parties, covering how the Green parties are organized and the differences between Greens of different countries. (Analogue: Communist party)
 * List of Green party issues, which remains and index.

Basically, it seems more intuitive, more accessible, and more consistent to put most of this historical information under "Green movement" rather than "worldwide green parties." Tillwe's plan indicates that this article is currently the "core" article on Greenness because it was the most developed in 2003. I believe that a change is necessary. Fishal 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * List of Green party issues and List of Green party issues should be incorporated into Green politics, with the rest incorporated into Worldwide green parties - no need for a separate article. Should Worldwide be moved back to Green Party? -- Jeandré, 2007-03-25t12:15z


 * I like Fishal's 1, 2 & 3 but I don't see the point of 4. I think a list of party issues is just an arbitrary collection of non-information. I think Worldwide green parties is preferable over green party, which should be a disambiguation. C mon 13:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jeandre's idea to move some of that content from the list. I will go ahead and begin the move.  Fishal 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Jeandre's idea for the name change. See Naming conventions (common names) and Naming conventions (precision), as well as precedents such as Communist party.  There are a number of reasons why I do not like the name "Worldwide green parties."  For one thing, it sounds like it is only talking about international ("worldwide") organizations like the Global Greens.  In reality, the article talks about all the Green parties in the world.  Secondly, the article talks about Green parties, pure and simple.  Reading the article makes it clear that it is worldwide in scope, but it is redundant and unnecessary to include it in the title.  (The article isn't called "Worldwide bread;" it's just "Bread.")  Finally, "Worldwide green parties" uses unclear capitalization.  While the article addresses "small-g" green parties, "capital-G" Green parties are given much more prominence.  "Green parties" or, better still, "Green party," avoids this confusion because the first letter of the article title should always be capitalized.  That's my opinion.  I think a move is in order.  Fishal 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One month with no objections; I'm moving this to Green party. Fishal 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We mean both Pacifism and Nonviolent Action
We are not communicating clearly. We list ‘pacifism’ in the introduction. We would be better off listing ‘nonviolent action,’ or both. Many people think pacifism means being passive, not doing much, just accepting injustice. We mean the whole Gene Sharp THE POLITICS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION approach, organizing our fellow citizens, the civil rights movement, people power, speaking truth to power, all that, all those many, many methods in which we can do a great deal indeed. Please, let us go ahead and say it. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonviolence would be a better link in the lead section. I'll make the change.  Fishal 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)