Talk:Alliance 90/The Greens/Archive 1

Archive 1

ÖDP

The party first won seats in the Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, in 1983; after some success in state level and European parliament elections. The Greens received 8.3% of the vote in the January 1987 West German national election. In 1982 some members of the party broke away to form the Ecological Democratic Party with a more conservative and less liberal political view.

The party first won seats in the Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, in 1983; after some success in state level and European parliament elections. The Greens received 8.3% of the vote in the January 1987 West German national election. In 1982 some members of the party broke away to form the Ecological Democratic Party due to differences on issues such as feminism, abortion, gay rights, and marijuana legalization.

I still prefer the "more conservative and less liberal political view", because the left-right-axis is still a very strong dimension in German politics. If we name the differences, we should have a closer look at the break-away-process of the Ecological Democratic Party (ÖDP). I'd agree with feminism (and abortion, which I'd see in German politics of the 1980s as a sub-issue of feminism in general), and possibly also gay rights. I don't think marijuana legalization was a topic in the 1980s. All four points could be summarized under the German terms like "liberale Bürgerrechte" or "liberale Gesellschaftspolitik". I tried to summarize them with "less liberal political view", which might lead to misunderstandings. BTW: If we sort the events chronological, the ÖDP break-away should move a bit to the top.

Let's have a look what the political scientist Joachim Raschke is saying about the ÖDP in his standard book about the early greens, Die Grünen, wie sie wurden, was sie sind. He writes:

"[...] Der rechte Flügel vertrat einen Wertkonservativsmus, der Ökologie als Gattungsfrage verstand und über die gesellschaftspolitischen Grenzen gewissermaßen nicht mehr sprechen wollte (wies dies im bekannten Gruhlschen Diktum ['Die Grünen sind nicht links, nicht rechts, sondern vorn', T.W.] festgehalten ist). Auf dem rechten Flügel bildete die GAZ die 'stärkste organisatorische Säule'. Die GAZ verweigerte ihre Auflösung auch noch nach der Gründung der Grünen und setzte die Grünen von außen mit progammatorischen Forderungen unter Druck. Innerhalb der Grünen hatte sich eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ökologischer Politik gebildet, die die Konservativen zusammenschloß. Auf dem Dortmunder Parteitag im Juni 1980 unterlag der konservative Flügel der Mitte-Links-Mehrheit -- wie zuvor schon in Saarbrücken -- und bildete im Juli die Grüne Föderation. Sie war eine Zwischenetappe auf dem Weg zur 1981 gegründeten Ökologisch-Demokratischen Partei (ÖDP), die die bürgerlichen bzw. konservativ-ökologischen Gruppierungen in einer separaten Partei zusammenfaßte." (S. 144f.)

To summarize the main point: The Ecological Democratic Party was the result of leftists victories in the Dortmund and Saarbrücken party conventions, which lead the right faction ("Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ökologische Politik") to form it's own party. This became the ÖDP. Raschke characterizes thes ÖDP als "bürgerlich" (bourgeoise) and "konservativ-ökologisch" (environmentalist, with conservative values, but not aiming at changing the civil society). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 08:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of how strong the single left-right axis is in German politics in general, the ÖDP is unique because it does not fit into it. On some issues such as the environment and trade, it is as "left" as the Greens, but combines this with issues that are otherwise considered "right". This is not the same as being "to the right". So I removed the "right-wing faction of the party". I also replaced "feminism" with "abortion" since that is where the real difference lies. --Erauch 16:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd disagree. This sounds like a ÖDP partisan point of view. So I changed it a bit back (not all). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 16:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We'll get there eventually. Please do not restore "feminism" unless you can cite how the party's platform differs substantially on it (other than abortion). (PS, I'm not a member or supporter.) --Erauch 05:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have restored feminism. I do not know if you speak German, but if you do so, have a look at http://www.oedp.de and compare it to http://www.gruene.de. On the ÖDP page, if you browse for political issues and positions, women are only mentioned in relation to family politic and better situation for children. On the green page, you'll find feminism everywere. On the green page, it is a political issue on itself, the Greens have even a position in their board especially responsible for feminism and womens politics, annually womens conferences, and so on. I'm pretty sure that the differences were even bigger in the 1980s. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 13:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The lesser emphasis does not amount to a difference in policy. Please cite a nontrivial contrast in policy in the two parties' platforms. --Erauch 01:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the ÖDP didn't had much chance to show how they would actually do what they are talking about, lacking seats in Länder parliaments or goverments. But even if one only looks at the actual political positions as formulated in the party programmes, the differences are obvious. Feminism doesn't mean: "do not discriminate against women", but it means "do actively something to promote political, social and economical rights of women". If you agree more or less on the later definition, it would be very difficult to find ÖDP positions. If you know otherwise, please cite them.

BTW: I rolled back the changes, on the on hand because of this feminism/abortion issue, on the other hand, because I really think it would be confusing (and BHauck(?) is right about this) to speak in an article about Bündnis 90/Die Grünen in reference to the ÖDP as green party, even if it formally is correct. Even the Ecological Democratic Party article doesn't refer to the ÖDP as green party (and doesn't say anything about them valuing feminism). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see any evidence of substansive differences on "feminism" other than abortion. In fact, quite the opposite. It calls for "gerechtere Familienleistungsausgleich" (more just division of work within the family), "Chancengleichheit von Frauen und Männern" (equality of opportunity for women and men), and "Förderung der Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf für Frauen und Männer" (support for the right balance between carreer and family for women and men). [1] (This is the platform of one of the local chapters, but it is representative of the party as a whole.)

And the ÖDP is not a green party? What does the Ö stand for then? Bhuck was not disputing the characterization as a green party, merely objecting to your phrase "the role non-ecological themes should play in the Green party".

Your assertions that the party is "right of the middle" are not convincing. "Sonne statt Atom" (solar energy instead of atomic)? "Ökologisch-soziale Marktwirtschaft" (ecological/social democracy)? These represent the core principles of the party, and most people wouldn't consider them "right wing". --Erauch 15:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I interpret the Passau programme different. "Gerechterer Familienlastenausgleich" doesn't mean more just division of work within the family, but more founding for families thru the state. Equal opportunities for women and men -- which party doesn't want this? And the work-life-balance for women and men still is centered on the family. Compare this with the notion in the actual green party programme:

(p. 105) Towards a gender-equitable society

ALLIANCE90/THEGREENS are committed to the equal rights of women and men in all spheres of life. Feminism, the women’s movement and the personal commitment of women are essential sources of Alliance/Green politics. The equal participation of women and men in our political work has been a key factor in our political self-definition. Policies on women have been, and still are, a topic that cuts across all subject areas, aiming to make the world women and men live in fit the diversity of their actual situations and interests. This makes policy on women a policy for the whole of society, one which analyses and changes power structures with a view to gender justice. Our policy on women culminates in a new policy on women, men, gender and society. For us, gender justice means a vision of democracy, freedom and human equality that goes well beyond the measure achieved so far. [...] (see: http://archiv.gruene-partei.de/dokumente/grundsatzprogramm-english.pdf )

That is far more than "better jobs for women and more time with kids for men", rhetorically almost every party today subscribes to. And it was a still greater difference in the 1980s.

ÖDP as a green party: I don't say ÖDP isn't "a" green party. I only say it is confusing to speak about "green party" in an article about Alliance 90/The Greens meaning ÖDP and The Greens. BHuck commented similiar by changing this.

Rigth to the middle: Environmental or ecological concers are neither left nor right, so "Sonne statt Atom" doesn't mean ÖDP is left-wing. And ökologisch-soziale Marktwirtschaft is a clear market oriented programme. Of course, the left-right-dimension in politics is something that is not clearly defined. Typical "left" positions could mean left in regard to state instead of market (then the early green were left, the greens today are not), or it could mean left in regard to civil liberties. In the later sense, I'm still convinced that The Greens are left and the ÖDP isn't. But in the article, one thing is: we speak about the 1980s parties, not the parties of today. The other thing is, I'm merely citing an outspoken expert on green politics, that is Raschke (and others would agree, I'm sure).

So I reverted your changes, again. But I hope we find a way to solve this peacefully without growing into an edit war! -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 16:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Left/right: It depends on your perspective, of course, but I am comparing with the two large parties. Your arguments actually support my assertion that "left/right" is not a valid way to characterize the ÖDP or green politics in general.

"Feminism": I don't dispute a difference in emphasis, but this is still not a substantial difference in policy.

I think your shortening is probably the right solution, but the "right wing" that is left still needs balance, so I removed it too.

Please do not simply revert changes; suggest alternate solutions instead. --Erauch 17:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "left/right" business is too complicated to mention in half a sentence; it should remain in the ÖDP article. --Erauch 02:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed this:

They also tended to identify more closely with a culture of protest, such as the demonstrations against the Pershing missile deployment, against nuclear power, or against the construction of a new runway "Startbahn West" at Frankfurt airport, where their members frequently clashed with police forces

Please read the ÖDP party platform. The two parties are essentially the same in their opposition to nuclear power and environmental issues such as noise and air pollution, and many ÖDP members have taken part in protests. --Erauch 16:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree the ÖDP is against nuclear power and noise pollution. The extent to which ÖDP members have been involved in protests is somewhat dependent on the character of those protests, and this gets to the cultural point I am trying to address. The Greens in the 1980's (yes, obviously, twenty years later, things have changed, as the Greens have become more part of the "establishment") were often engaged in overt conflict with the police, for example, while ÖDP "protests" tended to be much more "polite" and respectful of authority. Did ÖDP members chain themselves to rails to stop transports to Gorleben? Did they get arrested for cutting through fences surrounding military installations? This is an important cultural difference for the historical period under discussion, which I think we should adress in some way. I will try to think of a different way to phrase this.

Also, though, while I'm sure some Greens in the 1980's favored unrestricted immigration, I doubt this was what Green party members like Otto Schily were working for. Your phrasing regarding the position of gay and lesbian rights also underplays the differences or rather hides the fact that this was not at all a priority for the ÖDP. BhuckBhuck 14:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding protests, I don't know. Your latest changes are not unreasonable, but this is more how a Green Party member would characterize the split than an ÖDP member. I have left them but made a change in the ÖDP article. --Erauch 00:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert of incidental deleted article

Hi, I just noticed most of the article was gone, so I reverted that. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 09:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links

Sorry, I can't see any english information on the first link on the official homepage from Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. Shouldn't we change it to the European party? --Weissmann 03:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it the oldest green party ?

If you look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales

you will see that party was formed some six years prior to the German Green Party, so it is factually incorrect to say that the German greens are the oldest Green party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.83.97 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Values Party of New Zealand is widely regarded as the oldest in the world. Mattlore (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE NOT MOVED -- as there was no consensus for the move per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I post a question first. It is unusual for names to be literally translated from the original version to English. I send an email and asked the German Greens about their name in English, they wrote back and said they call themselves in English "German Green Party" and not some literal translation such as "Alliance '90/The Greens". I think it would be best to move it to that name in that case, see also Austrian Green Party or Christian Social Union of Bavaria for a similar cases. Gryffindor 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer having the article under their german name with redirect from "German Green Party" and possibly without a redirect from the actual literal translation. --Schizoschaf 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can either post the email they send where it states that the party calls itself "German Green Party" or post it here. I am in favour of moving to the correct name instead of some translation which is not even official. Gryffindor 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think not including Alliance '90 distorts the history of the party. Furthermore official press releases of the party like this uses "ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS". As does their site's English section and the translated version of their political program. So I oppose the move. C mon 17:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of having it at its current title. —Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Die Junge Welt

I reverted this edit by User:Don't lose that number for three reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not the place to post the opinions ever held by every organization of other organizations. The opinion of the Junge Welt is not notable enough to get this place on this article.
2. This editioral was posted as a major event in the history of the A'90/DG, while actually it is not, such information might be a side not in an ideology section
3. The edit was technically poor, instead of note it used a plain URL in text and it wrote nazi in all capitals.
   

- C mon 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A call by an established newspaper to ban the Greens is not a small thing. It certainly warrants inclusion. If you want to post rebuttal info from reliable sources, do it, but this can't be swept under the rug. --Don't lose that number 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss instead of entering an edit war. I've listed three valid points you could go into them. I'll respond to your point.

We can't list every opinion an organization (in this case a paper) has about another organization (in this case a party). There isn't enough space. We do not list major German papers positions on more important issues like welfare state reform either. Furthermore the Junge Welt appears to be a small sectarian paper with a political agenda and not an established newspaper (and even then I would argue against inclusion). Wikipedia is not the place to document minor hypes in the media. I'm not sweeping things under rugs, I'm merely trying to keep this article on wikipedia's standards.

If you disagree with me please do not revert my actions, but argue your case and use official means of dispute resolution. - C mon 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with C_mon. —Nightstallion (?) 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you want this to be an advocacy article with no criticism. The treatment of the Greens' involvement in violence is discussed with the most delicate of euphemisms. Also, the article is not overly long, and the history section ends in 2005, so the argument that you are making -- "We can't list every opinion and organization (in this case a paper) has about another organization" -- is a false argument, especially since under Wikipedia policy a paper is not an "organization," it is what is called a reliable source, and therefore should be included unless you can come up with far more persuasive arguments against inclusion. It might be appropriate to provide more context, since there are now serious faction fights amongst the Greens over the question of supporting wars in the Mideast. Junge Welt is a leftist paper, which probably supported the Greens in the past. --Don't lose that number 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can come to some sort of compromise

First, the editorial of a newspaper advocates a clear POV, I do not think it that is included under WP:RS. Even if it would, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Fringe theories because I think the paper does not represent the mainstream German public debate, because it is a fringe proposition to urge the ban of the Greens under this German constitution. Furthermore a comparison to the NSDAP could be seen as Wikipedia:Libel.

But second if on the other side you (or other people like Nightstallion) could write a section based on other (less questionable sources) about the (supposed) political conflict within the Greens, than that would be clearly acceptable. I just don't think the editorial of a (explicitly Marxist) newspaper is a reliable external source.

- C mon 08:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a justification for your argument in WP:RS. --Don't lose that number 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally (or not), the Junge Welt article was recently highlighted on the "Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee" website.[2] Perhaps that's why we have this reference being promoted here and now. - Will Beback · † · 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Junge Welt is a front for LaRouche? If not, how does this reflect upon the reliability of the paper as a source? --Don't lose that number 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would kindly direct your attention to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and especially the section on conspiracy theorists. LaRouche is a good example of fringe theorists. Therefore this does not reflect well on your source at all. C mon 06:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't reflect on my source at all. --Don't lose that number 14:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Just give it up, the proposal is neither to be taken seriously nor really notable. —Nightstallion (?) 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A new page-move suggestion

Should there be an apostrophe in the title? According to their official logo (?), it doesn't appear that they use one. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The apostrophe is not used in germany. Neither by the party itself nor by the public. The page should be moved to Alliance 90/The Greens--Karsten11 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The apostrophe simply isn't part of the name. Maikel (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship?

Why was my edition reverted? -201.52.5.99 (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Stasi/KGB Infiltration

I understand that after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, informaiton came out that established that the Greens had been infiltrated/co-opted by the Stasi and/or the KGB. Can someone knowledgeable expand on this issue? Thank you. --190.45.244.215 (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice innuendo. I, on the other hand, understand that all Republicans are gay. Someone corroborate, please. Maikel (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1980s

Around this time, Joschka Fischer, although never holding any important party office

Look in his article:

From 1983 to 1985, Fischer was a member of the Bundestag for the Green party. In 1985, he became Minister for the Environment in Hessen in the first Social Democrat-Green coalition (1985-1987).

Someone should remove this error134.2.12.41 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hint: P A R T Y Office —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.136.17 (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1996 defections

Could someone add some description about the events in 1996 when civil rights activists defected to the CDU over alliances with PDS? Are there any leading members of Alliance 90 still in the party? 62.239.159.5 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resource in WSJ

Germany's Greens: From Hippies to Hip in September 16, 2011 WSJ by Patrick McGroarty with Anton Troianovski contributing. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

History - Foundation congress, Four Pillars

Changed order of the founding members (for historical correctness) and added some more names. - At that time then, it was by no means clear, which course this "Anti-party Party" - as they called themselves - would take. The political spectrum was immensely wide, and even stretching to both political extremes: from former hardline Maoists and Streetfighters to pseudo-mystically "Blood and soil"-inspired Organic farmers. - Eventually - but only after fierce debates and arguments! - they proclaimed the world-famous Four Pillars of the Green Party: sozial, ökologisch, basisdemokratisch, gewaltfrei (Social justice, Ecological wisdom, Grassroots democracy, Nonviolence). - It was already there in the info box, but I think it's so important, that it should go into the main text as well. -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki links

All the interwiki links are gone. Can someone fix this? I don't understand how this useless new meta system works, so I won't do it. Litawor (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Carey Campbell ???

I removed two images that showed a person named Carey Campbell. Seems this is some low rank member (if even that), that confuses this with his facebook page. I have never heard of him and google only finds the wikipedia images. Should probably replaced with some images of people currently prominent in the party, the German page has quite a few of them. 86.171.30.141 (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Nazi roots of the German Greens

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/The-Nazi-roots-of-the-German-Greens-318973 "The Nazi roots of the German Greens" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.252.102 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The German Green Party is an anti-fascist party. The article misinterprets a lots of things. --Yanmarka (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The German Green Party comes from a ant-war and social grass roots movement. It is totally irrelevant that a few members with supposedly Nazi-ties in the early founding years, who left the party after a few years, for the history of the party. The CDU party was founded with Nazi money and gold and still had former Nazi officials in high ranking political positions, e.g. Kurt Georg Kiesinger --Hoffmansk 16:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

Why the apostrophe in '90?

I get that "90" in Bündnis 90 stands for the year 1990, but adding an apostrophe into the English translation of the name seems a translation liberty too far. There's no apostrophe in the German original, so why is it "Alliance '90" in the English title name and not "Alliance 90"? Moncrief (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Political Position

In Thuringia they had the chance to get in coalation + tolerance with CDU + SPD. They prefered to get with the "Die Linke" in coala. That's why als " to Left-wing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertzt (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from writing nonsensical, unintelligible English. Also, this article is about the whole party, not the Thuringia branch.--Autospark (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Greens are a left wing party, not centre-left. They are clearly to the left of the SPD, which is itself left wing party. The only real question is whether the Greens are left wing or far left.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, hence irrelevant. Whatever your claim is, provide citable sources. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing Second Section " Former names and variants in the states"

I think all of this information should be included in the History sections. The section is poorly-written as is. What do you all think? Mff2020 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2017

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: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Alliance '90/The Greens → Alliance 90/The Greens – There isn't an apostrophe in the German name of the party (German: Bündnis 90/Die Grünen). Official name of the party in English does not use the apostrophe, and nor do English-language publications of the party: 1, 2, 3 Mélencron (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as per request, removing the apostrophe brings it in line with brand identity. Jake Brockman (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that we should remove the apostrophe from the article title.--Autospark (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom; it is little more than an uncontroversial technical request, in my view. --Checco (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Protection needed

An IP is continuously pushing unsourced "ideologies" into this article. I don't say that all of these descriptors are totally wrong. But they are not backed by the given sources and in my opinion, there are to many. Unfortunaltely till now the IP refused to discuss. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Change the name to The Greens (Germany)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxistfounder (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1