Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 22 June 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green New Deal 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Sustainability Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Climate change High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Green New Deal. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Green New Deal at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

GND as an international idea

Should this article have a less US-centric focus? The beginning sentence states: "The Green New Deal (GND) is a proposed package of United States legislation that aims to address climate change and economic inequality.". The Green New Deal was a concept that predated the legislation, created by a British Green New Deal group, and apparently the policy promoted by the Global Greens since 2011. The article also has a substantial focus on the US GND in it's content page; I propose the US GND be split off into a dedicated "Green New Deal in the United States" page. Catiline52 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that is probably a good idea, I would support that @Catiline52:Sadads (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Green New Deal has a clear provenance. Its origins, both as a political term and as a body of political thought, traces to 2007-08. The principal individuals who were originally involved can be reviewed at this site -- . I personally, as a US Green activist, recall many conversations during the global recession of 2008 where Greens discussed the response politics put forward by the UK "Green New Deal Group". The Green New Deal had multiple originators in multiple countries after 2008. It would not be appropriate, in tracing the origins/provenance and development of the Green New Deal to 'split off' a dedicated 'Green New Deal in the United States' page. Better would be to follow the chronology, and give weight to the origins and follow on of multiple countries, perhaps alphabetically, since there are many countries who have versions of the original UK Green New Deal Group's formal proposal (see their PDF )... Greenalot (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Catiline52: Weak support I'm ok with this, but the international section is very lacking. Re-writing the lead may be better? ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.greenpolicy360.net/w/Green_New_Deal
2. https://greennewdealgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Green-New-Deal-5th-Anniversary.pdf

I would second this - introduction section for sure needs to be moderated as it is strongly US centric. - I can contribute to the Canadian and EU sections though think that is not possible right now because the page is listed as an ECP page (rightfully so). :@Catiline52: :@TheKaloo: :@Sadads: :@Greenalot: (MarcusLeland (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

I'm removing the banner tag for this as it's six months old and there has been no discussion since September. FWIW though I support the Split providing someone has time to do the work to action it while making both articles coherent. This makes it 4:1 in favour. So unless more opposition arrives, if anyone does have the time to perform it, they could go ahead without further discussion. In the mean time, I'll update & make a minor internationalising edit to the lede to partially address the concern here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Small typo correction

Sorry if this the wrong place for suggestion, but "European Union" in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the main article is currently in lowercase (I don't have edit privileges).

Done , thanks for pointing that out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Section organization of AOC plan and Biden plan and miscellaneous minor corrections

(1) Should the sections about the AOC plan and the Biden plan relating to the Green New Deal not be subsections of the United States section instead of subsections of the By country or region section? Given that the AOC plan has such extensive currently sub-subsection coverage in this article that would not be covered in the index if the current AOC plan subsection was a sub-subsection of the currently placed United States subsection, should each country just be its own section (Australia as section 3, Canada as section 4, the EU as section 5, etc) and not a subsection of the By country or region section so that the United States section could contain the AOC plan as a subsection and all of the AOC plan’s current sub-subsections as instead sub-subsections of the United States section within the AOC plan subsection? For clarity, this is my proposed organization of this article’s sections:

  1 History
     1.1 Proposals to include the Green New Deal in recovery program from COVID-19
  2 Environmental justice
  3 Australia
  4 Canada
  5 European Union
  6 South Korea
  7 United Kingdom
  8 United States
     8.1 Early efforts
     8.2 The Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey Green New Deal
        8.2.1 Background
        8.2.2 Green New Deal Resolution
        8.2.3 House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
        8.2.4 January 2019 letter to Congress from environmental groups
        8.2.5 Criticism
        8.2.6 Supporters
        8.2.7 Detractors
        8.2.8 Legislative outcome
        8.2.9 2020 Presidential Campaign
     8.3 The Biden climate plan
  9 See also
  10 References
  11 External links
     11.1 Projects referred to as "Green New Deal"
     11.2 Green New Deal proposal in 116th Congress

This organization of sections would match the precedent of section followed by articles such as 2020 United States Senate elections where the discussion of how the topic is applied over a geographic region is given its own section instead of being a subsection of a theoretical section called By state such as how this article creates a section called By country or region. This reorganization would place the AOC plan and the Biden plan relating to the Green New Deal under the United States section where they should go instead of the current section organization that seems to imply that the AOC plan and the Biden plan are countries or regions.

(2) In section 3.7.8 of the current article (section 8.2.9 in my proposal of the section organization), the title is currently misspelled as "Legistrative outcome". It should say "Legislative outcome".

(3) There is an unnecessary extra line break between the Biden plan section and the See also section that should be deleted. I would do all of these things if I could edit this article.

Nicolás Macri (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much for taking the time to clearly specify those excellent improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Democrat leader council labeled conservative?

Article labels Dlc conservative. Not supported by cited article. Center-left would be better description.

Read further and American Action Network called center-right. Am very confused how DLC and PPI were listed as conservative in this and AAN was called center-right.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles
• Sustainability task force articles
• C-Class Climate change articles
• High-importance Climate change articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• C-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles