This article need a lot of work. It's horribly copyedited, and a disorganized mish-mash of ideas that read more like Green Party brochure copy than simple explanation of what they're about. But now that I think I've done something reasonable with the article titles, work can go on about this article proper, which should be an explanation of the format, organized, four-pillar Green Party. --LDC
What you have done with the article titles is to remove any sense of objectivity. The parties described in this article have no monopoly on small-g "green" policy, no monopoly on self-description by large-g "Greens", and no monopoly on what the four pillars are or mean.
The article as it stands is an attempt to explain what "(the Global) Green Parties" are, and how *they* view the four-pillar and their extension to the Ten Key Values, and how *they* currently cooperate. It would not appear to be advocacy if you had not changed the name to imply that they claimed some monopoly on "organized" which they do not claim.
The only thing that the "(Global) Green Parties" claim is that they adhere to some version of the four pillars or core values, they have agreed to some extension of these to the ten key values, and they in general represent the largest single party calling itself "Green" in any one country.
They do not even represent all of the "(Four-Pillar) Green Parties", as not all of these seek to extend the four core values to the ten key values. If I have to distinguish, it will be yet another article.
You are ignoring the list of titles discussed earlier and implications of the use of an adjective, proper or otherwise, ("Green") to describe a pluralized proper noun ("Parties") which is clear in and of itself.
The article title as it stands implies that to be an "O/organized Green Party" you have to pass some test or filter of the global or more specifically "(Global) Green Parties" - if the article implies this anywhere, point it out, it's not true, and it will have to be fixed.
It's exactly and only this claim that prevents this article from simply being what it is, a description of the actual real existing largest "(Global) Green Parties" and their history and ambitions.
I repeat for the Nth time the bug report: wiki's interface should not capitalize entries for terms being described in their generic sense... and titling, as a side issue, must respect normal English conventions.
For instance, your title would be more sensible as:
organized "Green Party" - the quotations would establish the claim of ownership of the term.
But the implication of the singular term "Party" is that this is one group of people with one agenda and one view of major political matters.
That is simply not true. It is a diverse movement of multiple "Parties" with no single global organization or structure, and not even any regular global meetings other than one in Australia so far.
Experienced contributors should know better than to change names of material they simply don't understand.
Oh, grow up. So I picked a name you don't like; fine. You make a good argument that it's a bad name, and I agree, so I'll change it. How about "Global green parties"? It violates our standard naming convention of singular nouns, but since it's an article that specificially deals with a collection of things as a collection, I can live with it. It follows our other naming conventions of being a simple description, capitalized correctly, and doesn't use parentheses for something other than disambiguation by context (Please go read our naming conventions). But you simply have to get over your obsession with the lowercase/uppercase thing: we, as a community, have decided upon naming conventions and software based on how its serves the overall needs of the project; the fact that it's a bit awkward for one small use is no reason to change that. Far better that writing some miniscule minority of articles should be tricky than the encyclopedia as a whole be made confusing and awkward to suit that minority.
The old Talk stuff is reproduced here:
This is an attempt to replace the article it is based on, called Green_Party.
None of the points covered in Green_Party have been omitted, although there has been some juggling and restatement and framing.
There is no global "Green Party" so the name of the original is inaccurate. An international Green Party to pursue global posts (as in ICANN At Large or some UN agencies which are proposing global elections using the Internet) has been proposed (in Puerto Allegre by the Italian Greens). If it exists, that is the most correct entry to sit under Green_Party.
The second most correct entry would be to describe http://globalgreens.org and the Global Greens Charter, which is the most extensive consensus of the global Green Parties, and is mentioned in this article.
However, it is a huge claim to say that "Green Parties" are fully represented by the process that took place in Australia - there have been objections to it and those are noted in this article.
I have tried to balance the presentation - some claims are quite improtant to understand what a Green Party *is* - those I have tried to balance cleanly with skeptical counter-claims. I'm not sure who to quote so I stuck to facts where I could.
There's a lot of interpretation of events here. I'd rather rely on citations and would be pleased if some of these points were made by quotations instead.
However, as the initial article met resistance for lack of NPOV, I'd rather get feedback on its scope, and then go digging for the appropriate quotes...
I was going to replace "green_party" (small P, singular) with a generic description of the range of non-Green (i.e. not Four Pillar, not Ten Key Value) views and the fact that Green Parties have no monopoly on who is a "green party".
I don't oppose Matt Hammond's views as such, and I find his political analysis refreshing and interesting - the LNSGP is the best example of such a non-Green party that views the green objectives in a radically different way - and they're *honest* which his rare in politics.
There are also the geo-libertarian parties, like the Marijuana Parties in Israel and British Columbia... these are examples of a "green party" I think but they are not Green Parties.
Wiki's stupid capitalize-everything interface is actually at fault for any confusion...
OK, this is now restored and linked properly. LNSGP is mentioned as an example of a non-Four-Pillar Green Party to show they exist, and there is a link to green party where this concept is dealt with in more depth...
PLEASE, if you are a member of one of these Green Parties and do not like the LNSGP or Marijuana parties or whatever, do not censor mention of them nor the use of the "green" label which they often adopt.
There's no reason to believe that "green" (small-g) implies "Four Pillars" or "Ten Key Values" - that's a political assertion of an equivalence and an attempt to control a meaning - those of you who oppose trademarks should maybe think about that...
If this article's name gets hacked it should get hacked back to "(Four Pillar) Green Parties" or "(the major) Green Parties" or "(the Global) Green Parties". It has to make some reference to their basis of unity, or it isn't going to bring the right readers here.