Talk:GroenLinks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GroenLinks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

GroenLinks was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 23, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Green Politics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles

Photograph

I dispute the relevance of the photograph placed with the article.

First of all this is a protestor carrying a GroenLinks protest sign. This does not mean he is a GroenLinks member. He also wears a FNV hat, so he could very well be an FNV affiliate, or neither, because the protest materials were handed out to everyone.

Furthermore, about the caption: I think the word 'activist' has a negative ring to it. GroenLinks has party members, not activists.

All in all I would expect photos of politicians, not of a protestor who might be related with GroenLinks, or might not be. ReinoutS 00:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fortuyn

Perhaps it might be relevant to mention that Fortuyn's killer was also an environmentalist? Bz2 11:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I really wouldn't see the any relevance there. ReinoutS 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name

I think moving this page is NOT a good idea for 2 reasons: 1) neither GroenLinks nor anyone else adresses this partij as GreenLeft. 2) This is a name, translating names should be taken with utmost care (E.g. consider Balkenende->Beamsfinish). Of course you are always free to provide the translation somewhere on the page Arnoutf 22:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your arguments. But the GreenLeft is the odd one out. All other major dutch parties are included in translation: People's Party for Freedom and Democracy Socialist Party (Netherlands) Democrats 66 Labour Party (Netherlands) etc. etc. It appears to Wikipedia policy. C mon 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your point, as indeed the others have also been translated I have been convinced. So please go ahead with your change of article name Arnoutf 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no objections I for over a month I will move this page. Arnoutf 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you moved it to Green Left and not to GreenLeft? C mon 21:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, changed it. Arnoutf 12:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say that it would be wiser to name the parties (all of them) to their official name. Greenleft is not the name of the party, GroenLinks is. If it were the name, like for example The Hague I agree, but no-one has ever called it GreenLeft.

I have changed it back to "GroenLinks". The name uses a peculiar (Dutch) orthography, which does not translate. In English, you can perhaps call it "the Dutch (leftist) Green party" (in lowercase) or "the 'green/Green left' party in the Netherlands" (also in lowercase), but "GreenLeft" is going too far. – Kaihsu 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you did:

1) goes in against wikipedia policy. A move should be discussed!

2) is wrong, it is policy that parties are listed on the closest translation of their name: In Dutch GroenLinks sounds as weird as GreenLeft, the name isn't difficult to translate, but just difficult.

3) is not based on evidence. GreenLeft uses it itself see here, and here (the italicized bits);

Please move it back and hold a discussion! -- C mon 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table

arnoutf collapsed the table, into a simpler version. That would seem logical on first hand, but the table however is part of uniform scheme I have devised to give the best overview of leadership and support changes for Dutch political parties. This one however is an earlier version. I would prefer to keep the table as it is, or expand it with membership figures. For a beter version of the table see the VVD article. --C mon 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea to try getting uniform tables in, although I am not totally convinced this level of detail is informative; but I see what you re doing; which is fine with me. I shall leave the long form. Arnoutf 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion

The tabel of content of this article is very long. When scrolling through the article I notice that untill name, the sections are long and justify a subheader. From the section name onwards most sections are however (very) short, sometimes only a one liner. I think these later sections should (1) either be considerably enlarged to warrant use of the many subheader or (2) drastically reduce the number of subheaders. My preference is the latter; if there are no objections I will start doing this in a while. Arnoutf 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your problem, but most headers are part of a common style which I have developped for all Dutch parties. I'd prefer to see the information under the headers drastically expanded instead of headers removed. Could you tell me which headers are especially troubling to you so we can assess how to solve them individually (removing some, expanding some)? C mon 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for consistency over articles I can agree with some smaller sections. The name section (although important) seems especially short; especailly for a level 1 heading. Third level heading seem a bit over the top at this stage though. Perhaps we can replace those with just plain bolded headers in the text. At least that way they drop out of the contents. Furhter expanding of the text is fine with me (one of my options out of this after all) Arnoutf 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I did in other article I have put name under history and I have removed the level three headers. Is this okay? C mon 13:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks much better now, still a bit 'overcompartimentalised' in the back; but not too bad now. Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 15:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Femke

I think this "ask femke"-feature merits a link on wikipedia, because it is currently the way to link to the GreenLeft's statements on policies. Very relevant to this party I believe. C mon 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I removed it let me give my motivation(s). (1) The tool is located in a subsite of the main GL website; which is already taken in the links sections - thus I think it is not necessary to add this link. (2) Although there are some cool features, it is not truly a relevant tool to ask a wide array of questions, it is more of an extended campaign tool - therefore I think it is not something that needs to be on Wikipedia. In general I am in favour of brief articles with only a very few links and templates; and I think the added vallue of this link is too little. I have no very strict feelings about this issue though - so if there is support for addition, please put it back in. Arnoutf 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Improve

User:GaryColemanFan added the {{Refimprove}} today. I do not understand why this article in general would need even more references? It has over 30, esp. in the history section. I hope that Gary or anyone else could explain which section they see as unreferenced. C mon (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right, the use of that template seems very much over the top. Of course there maybe unreferenced statements, but these can easily be flagged up with the fact tag (without questioning the overall quality of the article). I removed the tag. Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references for every tag and put the article up for peer review. C mon (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Eco-Socialist

www.interexlebanon.com [1] is wrong about Groen Links. The party is not anti capitalist, it does not oppose free market capitalism. They want a green social market economy, but not a socialist democratic economy. Groen Links turned more right wing since 1990 and is not a enemy of capitalism or the free market. --UDSS (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

This article needs to be thoroughly referenced before it is ready for GA status. Per the request above, I have added fact tags where references are needed (at minimum, each paragraphs needs at least one reference per paragraph). In addition, references need at least a title, publisher, url and accessdate. The article could also use some copyediting, as punctuation problems and grammatical errors are evident. Placing it for peer review would be a very good idea. Best wishes on improving this article, and I hoep to see it renominated once these issues have been dealt with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Hi all, while a lot of good work has been done on this article, I think it could benefit from a very thorough proofread/copyedit. I have started it, but cant do it all in one go. Below the TOC as a checklist what has been done Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   * Lead DONE Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Before 1989 DONE Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
         o 1.2 1989-1994
         o 1.3 1994-2002
         o 1.4 2002-now
         o 1.5 Name
   * 2 Ideology and Issues
         o 2.1 Ideology
         o 2.2 Proposals
   * 3 Representation and Support
         o 3.1 Overview
         o 3.2 Members of the Lower House of Parliament
         o 3.3 Members of the Upper House of Parliament
         o 3.4 Members of the European Parliament
         o 3.5 Municipal and Provincial Government
   * 4 Electorate
   * 5 Style and Campaign
   * 6 Organization
         o 6.1 Organizational structure
         o 6.2 Relationships to other parties
   * 7 References
   * 8 External links[reply]

Requested move 9 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLeft → GroenLinks – The official name of this party. The page was moved here in 2006. At the time there was already some opposition to the move. The original move claimed "policy" (not further specified) as the reason, as well as consistency with other Dutch parties. I don't think that move was proper.

According to WP:Naming_conventions_(use_English), the usage that is used predominantly in English language sources should be used. If there is none, the local name should be used. There seem to be fairly few English-language sources discussing the party. When there are, they are either using the Dutch name GroenLinks or add a space: Green Left. A single notable exception is "Green Parties in Transition: The End of Grass-roots Democracy?", which has a chapter that starts out using GroenLinks (including italicisation), and switches to GreenLeft later on (without italicisation). GroenLinks seems to be the most reasonable target to me, though I can see the argument for Green Left. However, the current style, GreenLeft is a worst of all worlds solution. 92.64.31.85 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor. See the section "Name", above, for some earlier discussion; I'll ping Arnoutf as well. I think this isn't exactly like the VVD or something like that, whose name is translated (I also think that's an abomination, by the way; almost all Dutch parties are known by their acronyms, except for this one); GroenLinks is very much a proper name. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a sensible idea. On their own website they have the following phrase "GroenLinks is the Green party in Netherlands" [2]. On an English language page of the European parliament their MEP are also listed as GroenLinks representatives [3]. On the English language information page of the Dutch parliament they are however listed with a translated name "Green Left" (note the space) [4] (PS this page also lists the (horrible) translations for the other parties. To me the whole translation of the names seems more like a hypercorrection than that they are actually commonly used anywhere.

In any case. Looking at all this. The name of this article should either be GroenLinks (most common), or Green Left (with space) since this is how the Dutch parliament site gives the translation. GreenLeft (without space) seems to be an En.Wikipedia invention [5] which should be changed anyway.

My preference would go with GroenLinks (given name). Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the arguments given by Arnoutf and the IP. PanchoS (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on GroenLinks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GroenLinks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dehelling.net/artikel/280/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027085244/http://www.linkselente.nl/bekende-nederlanders-stemmen-groenlinks to http://www.linkselente.nl/bekende-nederlanders-stemmen-groenlinks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on GroenLinks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GroenLinks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

centre left or left?

How is it that the merger of one far left (Communist) and three left wing parties results in a party that is called "centre left"? I would have thought that the party would be left or far left.122.59.213.223 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GroenLinks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170220173212/http://dnpp.ub.rug.nl/dnpp/pp/gl/leden/per_jaar to http://dnpp.ub.rug.nl/dnpp/pp/gl/leden/per_jaar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Revert undiscussed move. This was moved against the standing consensus so a full RM is not needed to restore it. I'm reverting the location to the status quo ante. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLeft → GroenLinks – Per previous requested move. Maybe the revert was done without sufficient history checks? Also, the mobile edit interface is a POS that doesn't allow me to post in any section other than the first, so sorry not sorry 195.235.52.75 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent controversies might be mentioned

BDS and Alireza Taimurizadeh... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC) \[reply]

Notification of discussion involving this article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties regarding the inclusion of the party flag in the infobox of this article. The thread is Party flags in infoboxes. Thank you. — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]