Talk:Green party/Archive02

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV / NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ☼☽ | Talk 14:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My little critique!

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd say that, too. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 17:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus Greens 

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

message: :(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 — in New Zealand constitutional practice — 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)
thread_title:  NZ Green Party did not form part of the government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eurosceptic Green Parties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Green Parties in the English-speaking world 

message: 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:
* Animal rights ,
* Environmentalism , , , 
* Kraft durch Freude The well-being of the working classes.
* Public health  (Antismoking campaigns, asbestos restrictions, occupational health and safety standards)
There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore.
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)
thread_title:  A darker shade of green 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Fishal 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral success 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nonviolence would be a better link in the lead section.  I'll make the change.  Fishal 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We mean both Pacifism and Nonviolent Action