In the course of moving what was United States Green Party to Green Party of the United States, User:Shem Daimwood managed to lose the revision history of this page, which contained a few paragraphs of information specific to the GPUS as an organization, as opposed to the Green Party's presence and history in the United States generally. I've added in a sentence as a placeholder to make clear that the two articles are on distinct (albeit closely related) relates, but the best thing would be to recover the lost content. RadicalSubversiv E 00:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There has been much confusion between Green Party (United States) and Green Party of the United States, but consensus on a merge is not clear. However, most of this confusion would be bypassed by moving this article (as is) to Green Party of the United States (national committee) and then making Green Party of the United States a redirect to Green Party (United States). Most of the talk is at Talk:Green Party (United States).
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. (BTW - the name is extremely confusing :(). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"after a convention was rigged to give the winner of 12% of the votes a majority of the delegates by the use of rotten borrough states with voting skewed against more populated states."
There's probably a point to be made here about overrepresentation of smaller states and states without primaries affecting the choice of candidate, but this is totally not on.
Saying it was "rigged" and using the phrase "rotten borough states" is totally POV. If you reshape it then it won't get reverted. Ben Raue ( Talk) 10:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
In the course of moving what was United States Green Party to Green Party of the United States, User:Shem Daimwood managed to lose the revision history of this page, which contained a few paragraphs of information specific to the GPUS as an organization, as opposed to the Green Party's presence and history in the United States generally. I've added in a sentence as a placeholder to make clear that the two articles are on distinct (albeit closely related) relates, but the best thing would be to recover the lost content. RadicalSubversiv E 00:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There has been much confusion between Green Party (United States) and Green Party of the United States, but consensus on a merge is not clear. However, most of this confusion would be bypassed by moving this article (as is) to Green Party of the United States (national committee) and then making Green Party of the United States a redirect to Green Party (United States). Most of the talk is at Talk:Green Party (United States).
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. (BTW - the name is extremely confusing :(). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"after a convention was rigged to give the winner of 12% of the votes a majority of the delegates by the use of rotten borrough states with voting skewed against more populated states."
There's probably a point to be made here about overrepresentation of smaller states and states without primaries affecting the choice of candidate, but this is totally not on.
Saying it was "rigged" and using the phrase "rotten borough states" is totally POV. If you reshape it then it won't get reverted. Ben Raue ( Talk) 10:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)