Talk:Green party

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming Pro-War section to something more neutral 

message: 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)
thread_title:  German Greens were not the first Green Party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capital G 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indigenous peoples 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Earl Killian]], prominent green software engineer, up for deletion

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*The parties themselves are called "Green Party" but this article is not a list of parties with this name but is instead a description of Green parties in general.  Some of these parties mentioned in the article don't even have "Green" in their name (e.g., Ecolo; see :Category:Green political parties for others).  The current title works fine.  —  AjaxSmack  00:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange that that doesn't redirect to Liberal Party, isn't it? I agree with the need for standardization, but I prefer the more concise titles. --BDD (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Green Party (disambiguation) →  – per Democratic Party, Republican Party, Conservative Party, Democratic Liberal Party, Liberal Democratic Party, and even The Greens, which are all disambiguations or WP:SETINDEX.
Please participate in discussion at Talk:Green Party (disambiguation), thanks – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing move proposal 

message: I wonder whether we could consider green parties part of syncretic politics, or more specifically the third way?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.132 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the place of greenism in the political spectrum 

message: The article three times mentions "non-violence" as being a core principle of the Greens.  However, Greens tend to be strongly associated with socialism, and socialism itself is typically dependent on theft of money by means of taxation, said taxation being backed up by the threat of violence. See the principles of Libertarianism, which classifies taxation as being theft. Shouldn't we condition Greens' claimed "non-violence" on a limitation, such as "Greens support non-violence, except where they want to take money in the form of taxation away from the people they oppose and vilify"?   67.5.241.97 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Violence?  But what about taxation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalgreens.info/literature/dann/chapterfive.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329020142/http://www.dailypost.vu/content/nations-interest-first-carcasses to http://www.dailypost.vu/content/nations-interest-first-carcasses
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Green party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030110112650/http://www.greenparty.org.uk/international/international/81/gewd.htm to http://greenparty.org.uk/international/international/81/gewd.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030113181805/http://europeangreens.org/peopleandparties/networks/gewd.html to http://www.europeangreens.org/peopleandparties/networks/gewd.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922175818/http://www.gp.org/elections/Green-Mayors/ to http://www.gp.org/elections/Green-Mayors/
*Added  tag to http://global.greens.org.au/charter/africanamericaprotocol.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Another euphemism in the article such as "social justice". How about socialism?
62.226.93.145 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the article use the term "non-violence" instead of "pacifism"? 

message: How can anybody seriously believe that this kind of parties are "non-violent" like the introduction of the article falsely claims?
The Greens also supported force in their history. Pacifism has never worked and only encourages evil.
62.226.93.145 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some logic in that. Can't be generalized for all, altought social jusitice and enviromentalism yes. So ok. More what is said by user hmmm that is private conclusion and this is not a forum. Nubia86 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Green party in Germany supported the first foreign mission of the german Bundeswehr in Kosovo in 1999, the first since the second world war