Talk:Green party/Archive01

Green vs green

We've only been through this 20 times.

This is now WRONG. The Marijuana Party or LNSGP is just as "Organized" as (the Global) Green Parties (plural).

The term "green" is *generic* no matter how much "Greens" want it not to be - the name is in common and widespread use generically, and there was a good example of that in Green Party.

Read the rest of the discussion at Talk:Green party/Archive-01, archived November 29, 2003.

---

Please have a look

Hi, to bring some order to the usual green chaos, I made the List of Green party issues, trying to collect all relevant articles. Please add to the list if you find more. One task for the list is to give an overview about green party and green movement related articles in Wikipedia (and also to show where there are no articles at the moment), the other task is possibly to be the base for a merger of same of the articles (mainly Worldwide green parties and Green party seem to be good candidates for this). -- till we *) 18:33, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think they are not good candidates for a merge. Read the above. There are many parties that claim to have "green" platforms, or to "green themselves", and that term is understood by the public to mean "have a more ecologically sensitive platform". Thus green party <-- lack of a big G would be ideal but this interface doesn't allow it - read the above. However, there are some such parties which agree on a lot of things: the Global Greens for instance, which belongs near the start of your list, not jammed in the middle, is an organization that only some of these parties (seemingly only the larger parties that adhere to the Four Pillars of the Green Party, the Ten Key Values of the Green Party or the Global Greens Charter, typically only one per country) belong to. But the desire to control the term by these parties, doesn't keep the public from referring to "a green party" meaning one with an acceptable or tolerable environmental profile. Merging would only give the latter less space, and compare them to the big-G Greens, when they really should be compared to other political parties generally - thus their own article is required. If people are linking to the wrong articles, and they probably are, fix those articles. There should be no references to green party except very generically anyway - one should always refer to a specific party, not the general concept of a 'green party'. To do that, refer instead to the Green Parties as a whole, the Global Greens as an organization, or to the Ten Key Values or something that has to do with the organizing of a political party and its values.

Les Verts not Green?

Hi, can anyone explain why French Les verts are listed as a small-g-Green-Party together with the radical party and some other miscellaneous ones? I don't think they belong there (and even with GroenLinks I'm not so sure). -- till we *) 14:21, Sep 28, 2003 (UTC)

I removed

But the term "green party" is nonetheless commonly used in the same generic sense as "socialist party" and "conservative party" to describe a party's views roughly to someone not familiar with the specific history of the particular local party.

that sounds very unclear.

Some parties that call themselves "green" in the generic sense, but do not subscribe to all Four Pillars or Ten Key Values of 'big-G Greens' include:

• GroenLinks of the Netherlands.
• Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
• Radical Party
• Les verts in France (?)

and this is just plain wrong to exclude Les Verts from the Greens. And the Greens are united by the 6 principles. Ten key values are american ? not world wide I think.

---

Edits by 63.201.231.226

Can someone please give a second opinion on the last edits by User:63.201.231.226, maybe they self? I find the last edit a very mixed blessing, some good restructuring mixed with wild deleting which doesn't make sense to me. If no one says something, I'll revert the edits in c. 24 hours. -- till we *) 20:56, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)