Talk:Green party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Archives

/Premerge — version of green party from before its merger with worldwide green parties /Archive01 — talk from Talk:Green party, before worldwide green parties was moved /Archive02‎

[edit] 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)