Ralph Nader is purposely not linked to from here, because he's not in (any) Green Party and he's not a representative green party politician.
I am considering , as per the previous request to compare the two articles, removing most of this as it is 100% redundant with the new "Green Parties" entry.
the term "green Party" and the term "green party" have variant uses that are not necessarily under control of the Green Parties, and which the Green Parties in general try to deny.
I'd define a small-g "green party" (informal, colloquial), or a big-p "green Party" ( formally organized party sharing some 'green' objectives) as being one that isn't one of the Green Parties necessarily, and maybe doesn't share all the Four Pillars or all the Ten Key Values.
as in, "socialist party" or "conservative party" which are generic terms.
That has the advantage that it leaves "Green Parties" more or less presenting Green Parties as they understand and present themselves, with only a few notes of criticism and controversy, but it gives "green party" controversy unrelated to the specific big-G program a place to live... like a more historical less political perspective.
If there are objections to that approach, let me know , before I implement it.
thanks
Someone is not reading the talk before making major changes.
The redirect needs to be undone. The article here is about generic small-g green party definition - and points to the larger and well known movement of Green Parties.
Which now (wrongly) redirects itself here.
This *REALLY PROVES* the need to have small-g "green" and big-G "Green" as different entries. dammit.
This is getting more wrong all the time. Green Parties do not define what is a Green Party. Members of Green Parties do not define what is a Green Party. The Four Pillars do not define what is a Green Party.
"writing for the enemy", remember? A "green party" (small g) is a party that is built on environmental goals. Whether or not it also accepts the peace movement goals. If I want to discredit the Green Parties, I point to the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, or the Marijuana Parties, and I exploit the confusion, and I fuzz the issue of the Four Pillars. So, the use of "green party" generically is real, and important, and still quite useful.
However, the Green Parties, Green Movement, and Greens (who could be either), all use that big-G Green in its proper sense.
The correct approach here is to restore the article under the title Green Parties (there is no "shorthand name" for any "group of parties" - this is wrong - there is a proposal by Green Parties to create a new international Green Party, and a GlobalGreens Charter that *some* of them agree to - two separate initiatives), and restore the article under "green party" which made the differentiation between a generally small-g "green party" compared to "socialist party" or "conservative party", and the specific Green Parties committed to the Four Pillars/ Ten Key Values.
I am *enraged* at this point at the spurious capitalization of entries, i.e. "green" versus "Green", which is literally destroying the integrity of them all.
There is no such thing as "'small-g' Green Parties" - spurious capitalization is making this article a mess.
There is, however, such a thing as a "'small-g green party" - including the values party, ecology party, etc., that predate the modern Green Parties, and the marijuana parties, and even the LNSGP.
"Green_party" and "Green_Party" need to be restored to the generic entry that outlines the generic use, and points to the separate entry on "Green_Parties".
The second article which has been jammed into the text here is already complete, and already contains all the text of the original article, with the exception of some incorrect introduction material, such as "shorthand name"...
24: you can't have distinct 'Green party' and 'green party' entries in the Wikipedia using the current software. You are apparently "*enraged*" by other people's attempts to clean up your mess. I'm amused that you are now issuing instructions to other authors. Hint: try playing well with others, first. The Anome
No, it's the stupid user interface that adds spurious capitals that is the only thing enraging me. I know what a good user interface is, and one that confuses generic and Proper names is not one...
I didn't *ask* for distinct "Green party" and "green party" entries anyway, it was "green Party" that needs to be distinguished from "Green Party" in this case. The two entries are required for the use of "libertarian" vs. "Libertarian" - the equivalent for "green" is pointless as that term is too abused to use other than politically - unlike "Green" which is much more specific and almost always means "adhering to the Four Pillars"
Anyway, all that is required now is to restore the "green Party" entry I had written just prior to this one, and put the "second article" presently visible back at "Green_Parties" which properly and plurally describes the several big-G Green Parties - and *only* them.
I don't see any instructions here for undoing a diff under "editing help" so I assume it's a special function easier for some people to do than others?
- Hit "History", then view your old version, edit it, then save it (I think). Then we can add this to editing help.
Or, are you all just diffing and copying when you restore? If so I'll just do it myself.
point of order: *I* didn't create the mess, whoever shoved the two articles into one did that... I'm just asking not to have the corrections stomped on...
Hi, I think we have to watch the vibes here. Assuming your co-editors are acting in good faith helps us all a lot. It's really easy to misunderstand ASCII, so please be extra careful to try not to offend. Those were my weasel words "shorthand name" (written before the meeting in Australia, IIRC) and I'm not particularly proud of them but it would help make my world a more beautiful place if I didn't wander into random accusations. Peace, DanKeshet
It is actually a bug that current Wiki software allows case-sensitivity in titles at all, and that is not a feature we ever intended to make use of. Such liguistic conventions are not really the focus of an encyclopedia, and will confuse readers more than enlighten them. If not using them confuses writers, well, tough. It's readers that count. Writers are presumed intelligent enough to deal with such things. And please, please, don't elevate such stylistic nuances to the level of "correctness"--such hubris certainly has no place here. If you think a change in the software would make something better for users, then discuss it with the community in the appropriate places, and we agree with might do it. But we might not; in that case, work within the software you've got. --LDC