Talk:Green Party of the United States

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcampo-06 (article contribs).

Requesting redirects

Would someone be able to make redirects to this Green Party of the United States page for the co-chairs listed in the infobox? They are:

• Craig Cayetano (NJ)
• Darryl Moch (DC)
• Alfred Molison (TX)
• Tony Ndege (NC)
• Margaret Elisabeth (WA)
• Tamar Yager (VA)
• Joseph Naham (NY)

Thanks 72.8.237.42 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's better to not do that. If you search for Darryl Moch, for example, right now you'll find him named in at least 6 other articles: Green National Committee, 2022 Council of the District of Columbia election, 2024 Council of the District of Columbia election, List of state Green Parties in the United States, D.C. Statehood Green Party and Perry Redd. Redirecting his name to just this article would limit the information readers could find out about him. Station1 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relationship of the GPUS with international Green party organizations

The following is a proposed section on the relationship of the GPUS with international Green party organizations that could be added to this article:

The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) was a founding member of the Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas (Federación de Partidos Verdes de las Américas, FPVA), which joined three other regional federations of Green parties in 2001 to form the Global Greens.

In October 2019, the GPUS approved a proposal to join the São Paulo Forum (Foro de São Paulo, FSP) conglomeration of left-wing parties and maintain their membership in the FPVA and Global Greens. The GPUS said that “with the Global Green movement focused primarily on ecology, and at times taking right wing positions on other issues, it is necessary to join an alternative global movement that is more reflective of our four pillars.”
(https://secure.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=979)

In January 2022, in a disputed vote that the GPUS said was “fraudulent”, the FPVA terminated the membership of the Green Party of the United States in the FPVA (and hence in the Global Greens) and demoted it to observer status in the FPVA. The FPVA said this action was taken because joining a second international group of parties was forbidden, and that while the GPUS had not become a member of the FSP, it had selected delegates to the FSP and had not disavowed in writing an intent to join the FSP.
(https://gpus.org/committees/steering/minutes/may-8-2022/)
LETTER TO GPUS.pdf
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GDY9L1v6Qfj6NrFUVqfgSWu72oxThnii/view?usp=sharing)

In May 2022, the GPUS approved a proposal to withdraw from the FPVA (and hence the Global Greens). The Green Party of the United States said: “There has been a fraught relationship between the GPUS and the FPVA for some time now. These tensions come from the most powerful parties in FPVA having a right wing orientation. Some of these parties support the death penalty and oppose LGBTQ+ rights such as the Ecologist Green Party in Mexico and others like the Domincan Green Party are so right wing they support a Trump style wall along the Haitian border.”
(https://secure.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1078)

On November 1, 2024, four days before Election Day, the European Greens (another regional federation of Green parties in the Global Greens) issued a statement that “called upon US Green Party candidate Jill Stein to withdraw her Presidential candidacy, and endorse Kamala Harris.” The statement was signed by the two co-chairs of the European Greens and by 18 Green parties in 17 countries (out of 39 Green parties in 34 countries in the European Greens federation). The statement said: “European Greens also highlight the divergent values and policies of themselves and Jill Stein’s US Green Party. There is no link between the two, as the US Greens are no longer a member of the global organisation of Green parties. In part this fissure resulted from their relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders, and serious policy differences on key issues including Russia’s full scale assault on Ukraine.”
(https://europeangreens.eu/news/us-elections-european-greens-call-for-jill-stein-to-step-down/)

On November 1, 2024, the Green Party of the United States issued a response to the European Greens statement that noted foreign policy differences between the two:
(https://www.gp.org/gpus_responds_to_european_greens)

US Greens have been dismayed by European Green silence or complicity in response to Israel's apartheid policies, illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and atrocities in Gaza (now spreading to the West Bank and Lebanon). This issue is conspicuously absent from their recent statement on the US elections.

Regarding Ukraine: US Greens don't share European Greens' apparent reluctance to question the role of NATO, which too often promotes global US dominance and military aggression. US Greens have been critical of NATO expansionism, which helped provoke the current proxy war in Ukraine. This isn't an endorsement of Putin's actions — military invasion of another country is always a crime and targeted killing of civilians is always an atrocity that deserves prosecution under international law. Dr. Stein and US Greens have repeatedly called for a ceasefire and negotiation to halt the bloodshed in the Russia-Ukraine war.

Newross (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin

I removed the false claim “The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin” that was added to the lede and the “Russia” subsection of the “Criticism and controversies” section of this Wikipedia article.

The reference cited for this false claim was a November 1, 2024 Politico.eu article by Jakob Hanke Vela and Zoya Sheftalovich “Europe’s Greens ask Jill Stein to pull out of US election to prevent Trump victory”. (https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-greens-tell-jill-stein-to-pull-out-of-us-election-to-defeat-trump/)

Neither the Politico.eu article nor the European Greens November 1, 2024 statement “US elections: European Greens call for Jill Stein to step down” (https://europeangreens.eu/news/us-elections-european-greens-call-for-jill-stein-to-step-down/) says “The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin.”

A contemporaneous account of how, when and why the Green Party of the United States left the Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas (FPVA) and the Global Greens makes no mention of a “relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders”, or Putin, or Russia. The Green Party of the United States’ membership in the Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas (FPVA) and Global Greens ended a month before the February 24, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Please explain the rationale for the claim “The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin” and gain consensus before re-adding this claim to this Wikipedia article.
Newross (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The source you removed literally backs up the claim:

Friday’s statement from the European Greens highlighted the “divergent values and policies” of the European and U.S. Greens, noting “there is no link between the two as the US Greens are no longer a member of the global organization of Green parties.” The statement attributes the “fissure” to the American party’s “relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders, and serious policy differences on key issues including Russia’s full-scale assault on Ukraine.”

I'm re-adding the quote, as the source clearly backs it up. I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A paragraph from the November 1, 2024 statement by the European Greens calling for Jill Stein to step down four days before Election Day says: https://europeangreens.eu/news/us-elections-european-greens-call-for-jill-stein-to-step-down/

European Greens also highlight the divergent values and policies of themselves and Jill Stein’s US Green Party.

There is no link between the two, as the US Greens are no longer a member of the global organisation of Green parties.
In part this fissure resulted from
their relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders,

and serious policy differences on key issues including Russia’s full scale assault on Ukraine.

• I don’t dispute that the European Greens and the GPUS have divergent values and policies.
• I don’t dispute that there is no link between the European Greens and the GPUS, since the GPUS membership in the Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas (FPVA), and hence the Global Greens, was revoked by the FPVA in January 2022 due to disagreements with the FPVA.
• I don’t dispute that the European Greens and the GPUS have “serious policy differences on key issues including Russia’s full scale assault on Ukraine.”
• I don’t dispute that the European Greens made an unsubstantiated claim that the GPUS has a “relationship with [unnamed] parties with authoritarian leaders”, BUT:
◦ what relationship?
◦ which [unnamed] parties with authoritarian leaders?
• Why does any of this deserve to be in the lede of this Wikipedia article?

Based on the stated reason for the FPVA revoking the membership of the GPUS—the stated intent of the GPUS to also join the São Paulo Forum—an opponent of the GPUS could claim that if it joined the São Paulo Forum coalition of left-wing and progressive parties in Latin America and the Caribbean (despite not being in Latin America or the Caribbean)—among its 124 parties are the Communist Party of Cuba led by authoritarian leader Miguel Díaz-Canel and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela led by authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro, so that the GPUS would then have some sort of “relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders”?

There is no reliable source saying the Green Party of the United States has a any relationship whatsoever with the United Russia party or the All-Russia People's Front coalition led by authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin.

It is wrong for this Wikipedia article to imply that the GPUS has ties—as opposed to an adversary (the European Greens) making an unsubstantiated claim that it has a “relationship relationship with [unnamed] parties with authoritarian leaders”.

It is wrong to have a Wikipedia editor assume that one of the unnamed parties in the cited source is a Russian party led by Putin, then change an unsubstantiated claimed unspecified relationship with parties to being “ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin”, and add it to the “Russia” subsection “of the “Criticism and controversies” section and to the lede.

It is wrong for this Wikipedia article to twist the words of the European Greens statement and the Politico.eu article reporting on it to say: “The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin.” The cited source does not say this. Words matter.

Please address the concerns I raised above and gain consensus before repeatedly re-adding disputed content to a Wikipedia article about a political party, and its lede section, days before a general election. Brand-new disputed content should stay out of a Wikipedia article when the dispute has not been addressed and there is not consensus for its re-addition.
Newross (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead of re-adding:

The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin.

to the lede and the “Russia” subsection of the “Criticisms and controversies” section.

How about adding:

The European Greens attribute their “fissure” with the Green Party of the United States in part to its “relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders.” The European Greens do not say which parties with authoritarian leaders have a relationship with the GPUS, nor describe what type of relationship the GPUS has with the unnamed parties.

to a new “Allegations of relationships with parties with authoritarian leaders” subsection of the “Criticisms and controversies” section, and skip adding it to the lede.

This wording would be faithful to the cited source.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-greens-tell-jill-stein-to-pull-out-of-us-election-to-defeat-trump/
Newross (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You've given a wall of text that doesn't substantially respond to anything. I am genuinely baffled by your editing here. We have a reliable source covering this. We have the Greens statement itself - which is clearly referring to Russia, among others, due its criticism of the US Green Party's stance on Ukraine.

As for your wording - it goes against what our reliable source says, and instead adds your own original opinion - therefore, it's unacceptable. This content is important, and it (the party's removal from international green orgs) belongs in both the article and the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 04:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

How about simply adding:

The European Greens attribute their “fissure” with the Green Party of the United States in part to its “relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders.”

to a new “Allegations of relationships with parties with authoritarian leaders” subsection of the “Criticisms and controversies” section, and skip adding it to the lede.

This wording is fully supported by the cited source and makes it clear that a “relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders“ is a quote from the European Greens and not the Wikipedia encyclopedia saying this in its voice, and there is no Wikipedia editor original opinion or comment on the European Greens claim.

I apologize for the “wall of text” that I added to provide background and context.

The fundamental issue is that the cited source does not explicitly say:

The US Green Party is no longer a member of the global organization of green parties due to its ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin.

To add the inflammatory unsubstantiated accusation that the Green Party of the United States has “ties to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin” when the cited source does not explicitly say this, just because a Wikipedia editor believes that it is “clearly referring to Russia” is an unacceptable deviation from the cited source.

Especially when the cited source is a foreign news article reporting on a foreign political party’s statement—released four days before an election—in which the foreign political party is trying to torpedo an American political party’s campaign. Relying on this type of source for factual information about an American political party is a blatant neutral point of view violation.
Newross (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion may seem confusing to some, but to simplify, the Green Party of the USA is no longer a part of the Global Greens for the following reason: the GPUSA left the South American dominated FPVA in 2022. This event automatically revoked the GPUSA's status as an associate Global Greens member. The reasons for the tensions between the FPVA and the GPUSA are complex, multifaceted, and I have heard nothing of it having to do with Russia, Jill Stein, or presidential elections. The European Greens letter does not have any South American signatories, nor are they an authority on the FPVA or particularly knowledgeable about American Green Party politics. Of course, this European letter derided the GPUSA's 2024 nominee for her position on... running to be president, but this has little correlation to the FPVA event besides a lazy assertion in the letter that cannot authoritatively speak for the South American led FPVA. Additionally, Stein was not a co-chair, presidential nominee, or last presidential nominee at the time the Green Party left the FPVA and therefore the Global Greens. Also, the Young Global Greens US group is still a full member of the Young Global Greens. As for if any of this is in imperialist and bought and paid for sources Wikipedia depends on, I doubt it. 108.44.242.138 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)