Talk:Green Party of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re-creation

In the course of moving what was United States Green Party to Green Party of the United States, User:Shem Daimwood managed to lose the revision history of this page, which contained a few paragraphs of information specific to the GPUS as an organization, as opposed to the Green Party's presence and history in the United States generally. I've added in a sentence as a placeholder to make clear that the two articles are on distinct (albeit closely related) relates, but the best thing would be to recover the lost content. RadicalSubversiv E 00:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is untrue. I recall this all quite clearly, Subversiv, and no content on actual article pages was lost. Subversiv here was easily one of the rudest Wikipedians I came across when first registering my Wikipedia account, and his comments here misrepresent what was "lost" in a single page move (actually a merge which most editors on these articles see a need for): edit/revert histories, and nothing else. All mainpage article content was preserved, not that there was much to start with. His sanctimonious attitude (bringing up that I drink while editing on Talk pages, something most everyone who's editing with me is well aware of, which while funny to watch amounted to petty personality politics) toward me and misleading comments aren't much help to straightening this out, either. Shem 09:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have never brought up your drinking -- only you have done that. And yes, there was information in this article which was lost back in November, I belive because you used the page move feature to relocate Green Party (United States) (then named (United States Green Party) here, though it's long ago enough that I don't remember precisely. RadicalSubversiv E 17:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From Talk:Green Party (United States): "No such consensus existed, unless you count a handful of people popping into to suggest a move, me disagreeing, and the conversation ending at that. Shem acted without any sort of discussion, and freely admits to doing much of his editing while intoxicated;" Shem 19:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

There has been much confusion between Green Party (United States) and Green Party of the United States, but consensus on a merge is not clear. However, most of this confusion would be bypassed by moving this article (as is) to Green Party of the United States (national committee) and then making Green Party of the United States a redirect to Green Party (United States). Most of the talk is at Talk:Green Party (United States).

  • Support 65.28.237.180 02:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as a temporary measure pending a merge. Green Party of the United States should probably become a disambiguation until there is consensus to merge, though. - Nat Krause 06:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm also opposed to a merge, but it would be a better solution than a non-standard naming with the standard naming becoming a redirect. RadicalSubversiv E 02:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What would you say is non-standard about the proposed naming? - Nat Krause 20:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I should be clearer -- obviously using a parenthetical descriptor is our standard practice for disambiguating between two articles which would otherwise have exactly the same name -- but that's not the case here, and it would be completely non-standard and confusing for readers to have the actual name point to a completely different article. The proper solution to disambiguation with articles of similar names is a disambiguation notice at the top of the page, which this article already has. RadicalSubversiv E 16:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
A "proper solution" would be one that doesn't confuse the heck out of both readers and editors. You're obviously concerned with both accuracy and clarity, and I appreciate that, but you've ignored the real problems with clarity in the current situation (even with your disambiguation notice), which I have documented over on the other talk page, for example the misdirection experienced by User:Tvleavitt. I proposed this naming scheme solely because I thought you would prefer keeping this page's content separate, instead of a merge. But as you've said you prefer a merge to an alternate naming, and as everyone else who's weighed in on this discussion on the other talk page preferes a merge to the current situation, I'm going to merge this article into the general one, within the next day or so, when I get the chance. --65.28.237.180 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Discision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. (BTW - the name is extremely confusing :(). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Convention

"after a convention was rigged to give the winner of 12% of the votes a majority of the delegates by the use of rotten borrough states with voting skewed against more populated states."

There's probably a point to be made here about overrepresentation of smaller states and states without primaries affecting the choice of candidate, but this is totally not on.

Saying it was "rigged" and using the phrase "rotten borough states" is totally POV. If you reshape it then it won't get reverted. Ben Raue (Talk) 10:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)