Talk:Green party

Renaming Pro-War section to something more neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German Greens were not the first Green Party

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

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

Formation

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

Capital G

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

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

Indigenous peoples

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

Earl Killian, prominent green software engineer, up for deletion

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