Talk:New Democratic Party

Political Position revisited

Since it's been over a year since this was discussion, and to invoke WP:CCC and WP:BOLD, I think this should be debated again, especially once the leadership election happens. Most academic sources/political books already list the NDP as a left-wing party, so there's already merit that be mentioned within political position. With leader Tom Mulcair being removed due to not being left enough for most members, and with it looking like the next NDP leader will try to implement a more left-wing platform, I think the position of "Centre-Left to Left Wing" would be appropriate, with sources of course. Plus, it's undeniable that party houses factions that are left wing. Even though the Provincial equivalents are listed as Centre-left, remember that the Federal NDP is a different entity then thier provincial counterparts and may be classified with a different position (IE with the Centre to Centre-Left Federal Liberals and the BC provincial Centre-Right Liberals). Spilia4 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it matters if the party houses left-wing factions unless they have considerable enough power. Niki Ashton, the only candidate in this year's leadership election I would charcterize as "left-wing" only received around 13% of the vote (compared to around 9% last time) despite having a higher profile run than in 2102.. I think it's worth noting that the NDP is the only major federal party with its provincial branches being fully affiliated with it - every provincial New Democrat is technically a federal New Democrat. The British Columbia Liberal Party is centre-right because socially liberal members of the right-wing Social Credit Party joined it to prop up a new socially liberal, fiscally conservative party which they believed would be more viable i socially liberal BC, especially after the unpopular socially conservative government of Bill Vander Zalm. I believe some members pf the BC Liberals are actually members of the federal Conservatives as well. Scizor_99 (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If we are saying the party is "center-left to left-wing" rather than just calling it "center-left", we should at least acknowledge the democratic socialist currents and historical traditions as part of the party's ideology. Social democracy is considered center-left in most of the world and Thomas Mulcair doesn't even deserve that title considering the spineless centrist platform he ran under. Either we include democratic socialism under the party ideology, or we remove "left-wing" until we actually see the NDP make a legit left-wing platform. Left-Libertarian (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Liberals are "Centre-Left", not the NDP

https://books.google.ca/books?id=kmoHCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA173&dq=Left+wing+ndp&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxroW7-qfXAhVY4mMKHbzNC94Q6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=left-wing%20NDP&f=false207.164.255.137 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the long standing version of both sources text...thus added to left-wing....--Moxy (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Your source says the Conservatives are a "right-wing" party and the NDP are a "left-wing" party. It is unclear in the context written in that book whether it is meant that they are "on the left" or hard to the left, which is what is usually meant by "left-wing" here on Wikipedia. In addition, the article you referenced here says that the NDP was far to the left of the other parties from 1945-1980, while describing both the Liberals and the Conservatives as center-right over that period. For almost half of that period, the NDP did not exist and was the CCF, which was a self-described "democratic-socialist" party whose founding documents pledged the abolition of capitalism. While it didn't quite turn out that way, full or partial nationalization of "key sectors" of the economy was a primary part of the party's agenda. The formation of the NDP, which merged itself with Canada's largest trade union, the Canadian Labour Congress, marked an attempt to appeal to the (then) wealthier Eastern provinces by put the emphasis on reforming, rather than replacing capitalism. Social welfare policies such as universal healthcare and anti-poverty programs became more important than nationalization of the economy, which was seen as a tool to use in circumstance where the public sector was deemed more efficient. The NDP had many marked defeats of those representing the old left-wing of the CCF, such as Allan Blakeney's defeat of Woodrow LLoyd in Saskatchewan and the defeat of James Laxer and the Waffle movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Besides, the fact that the Liberals shifted notably to the left after electing Pierre Elliott Trudeau makes this passage seem less credible as a source. Scizor_99 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been a long time since Pierre Elliot Trudeau was electe, and there have been a lot of leaders shaping the party since then as well as the neo-liberal global economic climate. We currently have a Liberal Party run by the son of Pierre Trudeau who is handing out corporate subsidies calling it "public spending in the economy", keeping the Conservative's healthcare budget, privatizing infrastructure, supporting Conservative bills like C-51 and the TPP, selling arms to Saudi Arabia, and bending to the will of Donald Trump to increase our military spending for the largely obsolete NATO. The calling the Liberal Party of today left-wing or even center-left is an insult to the left. They're center-right in my opinion, maybe center at best. Left-Libertarian (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Results: "providing parliamentary support" and "supply and confidence".

Since my previous section was archived, I must once again register my objection to the mention, in the results table, of the NDP supporting a Liberal government. As I said before, "providing parliamentary support" was inaccurate and misleading, because it suggested a stronger and more formal relationship with the Liberal Party— and a presence in government— that simply did not exist. Just now I removed "supply and confidence", for much the same reasons: it overstates the NDP's role. Again, while it is obviously true that the NDP propped up Liberal governments in these periods, it was done on an ad-hoc basis by negotiating support on an issue-to-issue basis, or by keenly adopting NDP policy and daring them to vote against it. In either case, the NDP did not go long with this for long, and looked to topple the Liberal government at the quickest opportunity— not much of a deal. Contrast this with outcomes of the Ontario provincial election of 1985, or BC 2017: where the parties in question (Lib-NDP and NDP-Green, respectively) had a formal alliance, with a document outlining exactly the terms and conditions (and extent) of the co-operation, and unveiled this publicly. It's just not what happened federally. Kawnhr (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New Democratic Party. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ndp.ca/page/4787/print
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060121/election_turningpoints_060121?s_name=election2006&no_ads=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214202935/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=98a291f4-69a5-4862-8117-6fbe609f5b2a&k=36017 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=98a291f4-69a5-4862-8117-6fbe609f5b2a&k=36017
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ndp.ca/letter-to-canadians-from-jack-layton
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Thomas+Mulcair+holds+victory/6354649/story.html

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• 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) 22:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Just a reminder to everybody that it is not necessary or useful for the federal party's infobox to maintain a complete tally of the party's seats in provincial legislatures. Each provincial party already has its own separate article as it is, so there's no valid or useful reason for the federal party's article to get special treatment denied the Liberals or the Conservatives or the Greens. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "special treatment." The other parties' federal and provincial wings aren't linked formally in the way the NDP is. The NDP is the umbrella party, and it has provincial and federal wings. The page should reflect that. BlewsClews (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. We've got provincial & territorial NDP articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And this is the only party where the provincial and federal parties are linked, which means that the provincial seats are relevant to the umbrella organization which is the federal party. BlewsClews (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that the federal and provincial parties are formally linked (unlike the fed-provincial status between the Liberal and Conservatives, although one could make a case of some of them being compiled too--especially the Greens) it makes total sense to list out the provincial tallies, as is done with both the Democratic and Republican pages. (BlewsClews (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC))

We've got NDP provincial/territorial parties, which can handle the info. Please stop re-adding to the article those extra seats. You're engaging in a long drawn out edit war. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Since each provincial party has its own separate article to list its provincial legislature seats in, the NDP does not require special treatment different from how the Liberals or Conservatives handle the same information. How the United States or the United Kingdom handle their political parties is irrelevant, because the US and the UK don't work the same way as Canada does — their parties each operate as one nationwide entity that is responsible for party organization at all levels of government. The Utah Democratic Party is not a separate entity from the national US Democratic Party, but merely the national party's Utah chapter, and the Manchester Labour Party is not a separate entity from the national UK Labour Party — in those countries the whole party, regardless of what level of government is involved, is a single entity. Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May and Vince Cable, for example, are directly involved in municipal elections in the UK, because the parties running local council candidates in the cities and counties are not separate from the parties running MP candidates at Westminster — it's the same organization at both levels. It simply doesn't work the same way in Canada, so what other countries do is irrelevant — we have to decide how to do it based exclusively on what's true in the Canadian system, and not on how any other country does things, and what's true in the Canadian system is that it's unnecessary to reify provincial representation into national party data, because the provincial-level parties already have their own separate articles to list provincial legislature seats in. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought that most of these info-boxes were meaningless. Certainly the number of seats a party holds in Parliament is important, but adding seats in Yukon, where a member represents 2,000 people, with Ontario, where they represent 100,000 people, gives a false representation of support. Furthermore, in Quebec, the second largest province by population, none of the provincial parties are even unofficially affiliated with the major federal parties. TFD (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an info box, to display raw data. How that data is interpreted (i.e. comparisons of provincial seat size, lack of prov-fed linked parties in other provinces) isn't an argument for not presenting the data.BlewsClews (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We've got provincial/territorial NDP articles. Note: We don't put the federal seats totals in each of those articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. But the provincial parties are a lower level of government, so it makes sense not to include them in the provincial pages. BlewsClews (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus here, for what you want. Please drop it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure it is, because we cannot expect readers to be able to correctly interpret the data without this information. Incidentally, the UK info-box also includes local government members for each party. Why not include that too? Incidentally, where is this information taken from? If there are no actual sources that give the totals, then the information is too insignificant for inclusion. Also, territories do not compare to provinces, since they are creations of the federal government, rather than sovereign units. TFD (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The Canadian federal and provincial political parties are never directly involved in municipal politics in any Canadian city — the few Canadian cities that actually have political party structures in municipal politics (Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City, etc.) have completely unique municipal-specific parties that don't correspond in any way to the federal or provincial ones. So where on earth do you propose to get any municipal data from to add it to federal political party infoboxes? Again, the UK runs on a system where the national Conservative, Labour, LibDem, UKIP, etc., parties are directly involved in municipal politics, so what they do is based on how their system works — but it's irrelevant to what we should do, because it's irrelevant to how our system works. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You could say the same thing for the Nunavat council, yet they are included in the number of provincial and territorial members. BTW both Liberals and New Democrats have successfully run candidates for Toronto council. I don't know if other parties in other municipalities have done the same. TFD (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We really should not include provincial governments in the Infobox for the federal NDP. Canada has separate federal and provincial, and while the provincial NDPs (excluding Quebec) are linked to the federal NDP, the federal NDP does not contest provincial elections. As with the comparison with the main two parties US politics, that's an invalid comparison, apples and oranges, so to speak.--Autospark (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism is part of the party's constituion

Some people keep removing Democratic Socialism from the party's ideology when it's clearly stated in the party's constituion: https://xfer.ndp.ca/2016/documents/NDP-CONSTITUTION-EN.pdf PhidlerCrab (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It is better to use a secondary sources, such as Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (Greenwood, 2000), which clearly identifies the New Democrats as a socialist party (pp. 143-147). For whatever reason, some editors want to distinguish between social democratic and democratic socialism, although the terms are usually interchangeable. TFD (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the physical book? The url you provided only goes to page 27. Furthermore, I re-checked Wikipedia's policy on primary and secondary sources. As it turns out, you can use primary sources only to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Primary sources CANNOT be used to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesized material" which are done by secondary sources. Emphasis is my own, and the policy goes on and on in greater details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquitoba (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with the term...but the non working primary source is not good. Would be like using a NazI source for them claming there left wing. Will look for a source.....the problem is Democratic Socialism is not a term used normal in Canadian politics...we use the current term.--Moxy (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There really is no point calling it a left-wing party if we are going to suppress the democratic socialists within the party. Left-Libertarian (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Various other sources refer to the NDP as democratic socialist, such as Government of Edward Schreyer: Democratic Socialism in Manitoba Socialist, social democratic and democratic socialist are interchangeable terms, but in Canada the most usual term is socialist. In the Schreyer book for example, all three terms are used without distinction. TFD (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Political position

Where in the source does it say the NDP are Centre-left? I don't think it's fair to say "Left to Centre Left" when there are some sources classify Canadian parties on the Canadian political spectrum and other sources classifying them on a "world" political spectrum. IsabelleFlake (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't. I suggest we remove the field from the info-box. It comes below the box that says the party's ideology is social democracy/democratic socialism. Why not let readers decide for themselves where that fits into the political spectrum, rather than Wikipedia editors? TFD (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

For sure. If anyone else has anything to add, that's fine. We'll come to consensus to change it. I've never heard anyone refer to the NDP as "centre-left". IsabelleFlake (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, every other major parties uses the political spectrum in their info box. IMO, it makes no sense to create inconsistency with other equivalent pages. Aquitoba (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

OK guys your edit waring so much that the sources don't even match the content. We need some academic source for center-left. I will look myself but I believe I will have trouble finding non-news articles. In the mean time Can we get all back here and looking for sources.....we don't care about personal opinions. ...just what academic sources say.--Moxy (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the sources do match the content. I clearly added a citation which explicitly labelled the party centre-left. There was no clear consensus not to include centre-left, nor to remove it, nor to remove the source I added. While academic sources are preferable, news articles are more than acceptable sources for citations providing the news sources are reliable. The BBC is a very well known and regarded as a reliable source. Helper201 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been here for two weeks. Consensus was made as no one else felt the need to give any counter-points. Start a new discussion and read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. IsabelleFlake (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please point me to where there is a clear consensus for not including centre-left. Also what refute do you have for removing a perfectly acceptable reliable source which explicitly supports the claim of the party being centre-left? Helper201 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The original source didn't even include the word "centre-left" which was seconded by this user's comment. IsabelleFlake (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

To quote the BBC source directly - "The New Democratic Party is currently the third place party in Canada's Parliament, with 44 of 338 seats. The left-of-centre party has never held power". Left-of-centre means the exact same as centre-left. You also have yet to point to this clear consensus for not including centre-left. Helper201 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also in complete agreement with the comment by User:Aquitoba. Helper201 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, here are two more sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/world/americas/23canada.html
• https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/canadas-election-explained/6854408

Helper201 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What we are looking for is sources from the academic community....not headline news papers that have no context. Will take the time tomorrow to research this.....I don't really have a problem with the label but would be best to have a source that explains rather than mentioned in passing.--Moxy (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's going to be difficult because "center left" is not a defined term within academic writing. I have not been able to find any books or articles written about it. Outside Wikipedia, no one spends a lot of time determining where exactly mainstream parties fit on the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Lots of academic sources there's a whole academic principal devoted to the subject. I am concerned we have a group of editors not all that familiar with the topic. We have a whole bunch of opinions and the only sources used thus far for an edit war are news articles. There's hundreds of books out there analyzing this and not one person has mentioned a credible author or book. As I said before I don't have a problem with center left......we just need a real source.....I will review what I can get my eyes on ..--Moxy (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am well familiar with editing political pages on Wikipedia. What's being missed here is the fact that news articles are perfectly acceptable sources for citations. Yes, academic sources are preferable, however that's the issue here, preferable, not required. Wikipedia does not discriminate against news articles, providing they are from reliable sources. The sources are perfectly reliable and no argument has been presented as to why the party is not centre-left. Helper201 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the problem here... we are not going to use news sources over academic sources.... if hundreds of academic Publications say left vs some click Bait news headlines we have to go with the MORE reliable source ..... especially when the lesser source has zero analysis and does not help our readers understand the reason behind its stamtment. There's a whole academic discipline devoted to this.....zero need for news article on a topic covered widely by academic circles.--Moxy (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"We are not going to", that's you speaking for everyone, when you are speaking of your own opinion, please do not speak for others. Secondly, sources that state one fact do not discredit the reliability of another source saying something different, unless the source directly states the party is not X (X in this case being centre-left). Plenty of political parties have more than one position cited on their page, and this is a fairly long standing consistency on Wikipedia. So academic sources stating left-wing do not mean the party is not to some extent also centre-left. Thirdly, these sources are clearly not click bait. Helper201 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

of interest.... please don't use mass media for academic topics..... look for things things with an analysis.... look for things that will educate our readers.--Moxy (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That is something you should take up regarding altering Wikipedia's rules/policies. It is not the place to demand these changes on one random page. As it currently stands the way centre-left is cited is perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's rules and there is no current standing reason to remove it or the sources provided according to those rules. Helper201 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Its all there in the rules just need to read about it ...this topic is not pop culture and has a whole academic discipline associated with it Political science ..like other academic related articles best to avoid the lowest acceptable source ..let me quote for you...WP:NEWSORG "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release" . What your asking is to use a bad source in the lead about a term that is not covered in the article and using news sources that contradict academic ones causing a clear WP:WEIGHT problem...giving a news sources the same level of weight as academic ones. -- Moxy (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I finally found a book about the center left, Why the Left Loses: The Decline of the Centre-Left in Comparative Perspective (2017). In the first section, "Why the Left Loses," the editors define center-left as social democratic and labour parties. In the Canadian section, p. 39, it refers to What’s Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times (2011), p.3, which says the center left includes "social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." This section identifies two major Canadian center left parties, the Liberals and the NDP.[1] TFD (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That is also the only source that I could find. It seems like all the academic sources point to the party being left-wing rather than centre-left. I haven't heard of a socialist party being referred to as "centre-left". IsabelleFlake (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that other writers refer to liberals as centrist and social democrats/democratic socialists as part of the Left. I still do not see the point of putting this into the info-box. It already says the NDP is social democratic. It is center-left, if we define center-left as social democratic, or left-wing if we define the Left as including social democrats. What information does that provide readers? But saying center left to left then becomes a problem, because we are using different definitions.

TFD (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok let's use it and drop the news stuff. We need to write a bit about the political position in the article too. --Moxy (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is common consistency to include a political position/positions regardless of political ideology. Social democratic parties on Wikipedia still include a political position. Also one academic's view on the relationship between political ideologies and political positions does not act as a universal rule. Helper201 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you appear to be stonewalling and simply agreeing to implement what fits your own agenda or views. You do not speak for everyone. Helper201 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am agreeing to add a real source ....if you have one join in...but searching Google for news articles is not what anyone is looking for. --Moxy (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References

┌─────────────────────────┘I just presented two academic sources, in fact the only sources I could find that explain the term center left. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that Left-Libertarian and Helper201 were changing party ideology/position without gaining consensus which goes against the posted notice. IsabelleFlake (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, news articles from reliable sources are real sources, no matter what your opinion is, this is Wikipeida's rules, not your own. If you have a problem with that take it up with Wikipedia. IsabelleFlake, centre-left had long stood on this page and there should have been consensus to remove it and especially to remove it once it was cited, which there was no consensus to do. You can't just remove cited information and then demand a consensus to restore it. Helper201 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ok so what weight should we give the few sources we have? A section on the premise on movment of position that got them doing well a few elections ago perhaps? Dispite the majority of academic sources saying left.....we do have a few saying a centre-left shift is what got them to official opposition status. Lets see if we can drop old news papers with recognized sources on the topic that analyzes the situation on centre-left.--Moxy (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue of any shifting, its just different interpretations of where the party is on the political spectrum. There is nothing wrong with having more than one political position listed. The BBC article for instance was only written just over a year ago upon the election of the party's current leader. We don't weight to the majority of sources. Take the page Podemos for example. The overwhelming amount of sources label the party as left-wing, yet one source labels it far-left. This has been debated by experienced editors and the far-left label has been kept. We don't weight by majority. To preference sources involves an editors opinion and possible bias. As long as the source is reliable and does not directly contradict another, they can both stay. Helper201 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

here's an article that explains a bit ( not an analytical news article but a moment in time). I am try to get a copy of Éric Bélanger latest publication as he talk about the courting by the NDP of the Centrist vote in the 2000s.--Moxy (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:SYNTH. A source specifically stating the party is not/no longer centre-left is needed. As per synth, conclusions should not be drawn from sources that don't state something explicitly. Helper201 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned your not getting any point.....the news article is for you to read because your unsourced opinion above is not based in anything factual. --Moxy (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We've clearly reached an impasse, which is why I requested for further comments by other editors. I am not giving my opinion, I'm telling you what is cited by the news articles, which it is your opinion that these are not acceptable sources, when by Wikipedia's rules they are perfectly acceptable sources for citations. While I do not agree with conflating the ideology and political position sections it is a fairly routine commonality that social democratic parties (of which the NDP is one) are centre-left. Besides your view of news articles being unacceptable (of which I have persistently outlined they are perfectly acceptable to use for citations on Wikipedia) I don't see why you are so against removing this label. Helper201 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We are at an impass.... I am advocating for academic sources with an explanatory content in the article about as to why they are considered Centre left to explain the infobox lable....and your advocating for non-academic sources that mention this in passing and no new content to explain to our readers why we use the label. In my view your going out of your way to stifle progress.....so yes get others involved.... as we need to find sources that explain this and pass this knowledge on to our readers. You arguing with a guy who agrees that we should have Central left despite the overwhelming majority of sources saying just left. You have been unable to address the concerns raised in our policies that have been linked like undue weight and NEWSORG. --Moxy (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘See Why the Left Loses: The Decline of the Centre-Left in Comparative Perspective (2017). In the first section, "Why the Left Loses," the editors define center-left as social democratic and labor parties. In the Canadian section, p. 39, it refers to What’s Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times (2011), p.3, which says the center left includes "social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." This section identifies two major Canadian center left parties, the Liberals and the NDP.[2] TFD (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice never thought that Ross, George published the book again after 1998 .....good call. Was going out of my way not to read the book because I thought it was lasted published in 1998.--Moxy (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I like the wording here....Political Systems Of The World. Allied Publishers. p. 114. ISBN 978-81-7023-307-7......--Moxy (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion occurs over numerous different articles, I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27#Political position. TFD (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Blurry logo

As one might have guessed, this is my first time uploading an image. Although it appears sharp when you click on it - t becomes blurry in the page, why is that? Aquitoba (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, I figured it out, I think. The png file should have been svg - and I cannot find a way to convert png to svg. Thus, I’ll revert my own changes and let someone else with more experience do it. Aquitoba (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

it all good, I figured it out Aquitoba (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Verifying Edits

An IP is doing an unusual large number of editing, can someone (with wiki experience) verify whether these edits are appropriate for this article? Aquitoba (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)