Talk:Green Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Green Party of Canada has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 29, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 GA stuff 2 Working on FA status 3 History of the Green Party of Canada 4 History 5 Practicality 6 Provincial election results 7 History 8 Federal election results 9 Help 10 Centrism 11 Cleanup

[edit] GA stuff

• First mention of Harris (Party Leader) too brief. Unaware reader is confused by it

• More wiki-links essential for FA status, many more potentials found in this article

• Shifting political positions... needs references, newspaper article?

• Please reference statistics, especially in an introduction

• If it sounds like an opinion, reference it or lose it

• The following are much more specific comments:

Green Party policy writers have challenged this interpretation by claiming that any unintended regressive tax consequences would be fully offset by changes in tax rates and categories as well as an "eco-tax" refund for those who pay no tax. (Are these claims made in the stated 2006 party policy document? Though we know where to find details of the eco-tax, etc, the "challenged this interpretation" really needs to be attributed to a newspaper article)

Many Greens also claim that this... (attribution needed)

Still, the party was somewhat embarrassed in 2004 to find Greenpeace and the Sierra Club of Canada ranking its environmental platform slightly below that of the NDP (a fact the NDP made much of in some closely-contested ridings in an attempt to encourage Greens and other environmentalists to vote for them strategically). The 2005/06 Green Party platform once again received the highest environmental marks of any federal party. (One source attribution right at the end, highest environmental marks according to who? and preferably a newspaper article to reference their embarassment, especially as you use the word "somewhat" which is considerably vague))

Previous leader Jim Harris was first elected to the office with over 80% of the vote and the support of the leaders of all of the provincial level Green parties. He was re-elected on the first ballot by 56% of the membership in a leadership challenge vote in August 2004. Tom Manley placed second with over 30% of the vote. (statistics like this need referencing to source)

Under the title "Federal election results (1984-2006)" - if all this info has come from the same place, put a simple source reference next to the title perhaps, Otherwise lots more statistics in this section that need referencing, In this case it might be wiser to put the inline citations next to the subheadings

Harris was often criticized harshly within the party (reference this)

The Green Party was the first Canadian political party on the Internet, with almost full party contacts across Canada for provincial and federal through e-mail and FidoNet back in the late 1980s. (I might be missing something, but this sentence doesn't make sense, perhaps "purposes" should be slotted in after "federal", or at least some other noun.

Living Platform went down for days and returned with every single web address changed. It never recovered, though it is still visible. (Fill in the missing citation if you think one is neccessary here, though it is perhaps one of the places I wouldn't have expected a citation)

This change to the constitution was discussed at a duly constituted GPC General Meeting and was passed by a very large majority. (citation please)

The Rank a Plank page has not been created, therefore a very brief description as to what this is about should be included as the reader will find this intriguing (I did)

The party was not registered with Elections Canada, did not run candidates in the 2006 federal election, and may in fact be defunct. (confirm or deleted the fact about being "defunct")

It may be wise to move the par "Although the party did not win a seat in the 2004 election" to the top of the section so readers are less intimidated by the tables. Please also refer to the general archived peer review for more details on how this article could be improved

This article has failed twice, I do not want to fail it again but I feel it is still lacking. It's unfortunately like a driving test where you have to rely on instructor bias to get you through the test. I won't deny I have a strong bias towards referencing, but as pointed out in the peer review, put a citation into every section, if not every par. My above examples do not all need to be completed to upgrade to GA but a substantial part of them do. This could be done in the time it takes before I have to take the Hold status away therefore I have chosen not to fail it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglike (talk • contribs)

What is Rank a Plank? I wanted to work on it, but don't know enough to notice what is in there. I worked on all of this I believe. If you could have another look, I know I am missing a few things, I want to make sure they're within my scope. Also, which words should be wikified? GreenJoe 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the wikilinks just yet, they are more a thing to get to FA status (according to criteria). I have no clue what Rank a Plank is, if I did I wouldn't have asked for an explanation :P I think it is useful to have in there but it just needs an internet search to find out and give a brief description of what it is, or better, a whole page dedicated to Rank a Plank meaning that you can just leave it as a wikilink in this article. I hope that makes sense. At this point, focus on finding a reference for all those statistics in there. Douglike 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've now cited all of the stats. GreenJoe 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Look carefully at the section Federal election results (1984-2006), a whole section of stats unreferenced. If there is one reference point for this whole section it would probably be wise to put that next to the section title. Much better intro though Douglike 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The direction of the 2004 platform, while retaining similar ecological themes as before, was perceived" (By who was it perceived? simple citation to appropriate critic will do i think)

I removed the stats, because there is no central source. I'd leave it to the original contributor to re-add with citations. (I didn't put that in originally.) I re-worded the 2004 platform sentence. GreenJoe 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed a few points of grammar and expanded the initial reference to Jim Harris to make it clear who he is. The following need citations before GA status

• Many Greens also claim that this traditional left-right political spectrum analysis does not accurately capture the pragmatic ecological orientation of an evolving Green Party.
• Crookes' influence is one of the main dividing factors factions cite in their complaints about Harris and his allies, who were perceived often as doing his will. (need a citation to verify someone complained)
• These innovations were wholly abandoned on February 9, 2005, just after a harshly worded memo from Crookes in which he claimed that "dysfunctional" elements of the party were "driving out the talented". Living Platform went down for days and returned with every single web address changed. It never recovered, though it is still visible.[citation needed] (it is already labelled as such)

I hope that makes it easier Douglike 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed up. GreenJoe 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working on FA status

So who is ready to help take this article to FA status? GreenJoe 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Green Party of Canada

For anyone who cares, I've put a few tags on this article. It desperately needs some work, and I'm not qualified to do it. GreenJoe 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Most other party articles have longer history sections - most of the stuff on the history page could come over here. On the other hand, some editors seem to want to keep it short-if that's the case that's fine, but in that case it still needs to be changed to include the most relevant info-so stop reverting improvements.Nick.annejohn 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practicality

I believe a detailed look into the practicality of a party with only position is necessary for this article. One must instantly be concerned that a party with such a limited platform would not be able to participate in political decisions on a broader scale. As an example, it would be very difficult for the Green Party to debate the issue of reinstating capital punishment as their only focus is the environment. I would suggest that this should be stated as a likely reason for their lack of support and absence in Parliament. Now I know that might be biased, but a serious look at one dimensional political parties would be useful. Dale-DCX 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the information in the article must be verifiable and not our own original ideas. If you have some sources which discuss the Party's lack of support on that basis, it may be worth bringing up here. But we can't otherwise include.

What I think that you will likely find is a lack of public awareness about the Party's policies rather than a lack of policies per se. The Green Party would undoubtedly find cohesion on fewer issues than other parties but they all break down in various areas. But I think that it is probably correct that some Canadians won’t support perceived “single-issue” parties. --JGGardiner 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we would have to find a source for the issue, though I believe it would be worth doing. I definitely imagine that Canadians are worried about voting for the Green Party as they do not seem to have a broad platform. Perhaps if not a criticism in this article, a section detailing the party's non-green agenda as well as a mention of Canadians being apprehensive about voting for the party. I am sure we can find a source for that at least. Dale-DCX 18:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone here actually involved with the Green Party on this forum or are you all members of other parties. I am a member of the Green Party, and I'm currently serving on the Federal council. The Green Party recently released a platform the covers every issue from Forestry to Open source computer software. For people who have displayed such a lack of knowledge, I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia lets just anybody edit the pages. I frequently have to justify edits to the page because people who (usually) know little about the party decide to delete the content. Political junky 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dale-DCX have you read over the Green Party platform? Apparently not as the Green Party openly condemns Harpers stance on the death penalty as they oppose murder, even if it is state-sanctioned murder. Further proof that not many of you actually understand what your talking about. Political junky —Preceding comment was added at 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the Green Party's platform and the issues it covers. My point was simply the party's primary focus and entire reason for existing, is to preserve and restore the environment. Parties with a single platform can and must (if they did not, they would be useless) deal with the other issues of politics, though they are primarily focused on a single issue. In fact, all of their policies stem from this basic ideal. The Green Party's opposition of capital punishment and inter-state violence stems from their stance on the environment. Why is capital punishment bad? Because it harms people as forms of nature. Why is war bad? Because it requires increased industrial production and can devastate the environment. The former does indeed make sense. The later however, is rather convuluted. I find the Green Party's platform to indeed be hobbled together to legitimize themself. I find green issues to be extremely important and I believe in the necessity of environmental preservation parties. However, as a serious party, the Green Party is not. If there were no environmental issues, the party would not exist. Unlike the idealogical parties, who must exist, regardless of the world circumstances. Specifically in Canada, a single focus party does not work because the electoral system is not proportional to votes. In many European countries, a Green Party is a far more logical choice to vote for, because they actually stand a chance of being elected due to their electoral system. Not that the Green Party in Canada stands no chance, just a very small one. My main point, above any issues with their overall platform though, is that the Green Party as (primarily and perceivedly) a single issue party is not particularly attractive to Canadians. It simply is not practical enough. Dale-DCX (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see the further perpetuation of the false idea that Green parties are only about the environment. Please refer to the Global Greens Charter which outlines six core principles Green parties around the world have signed on to, only one of which is focused on the environment (that being “ecological wisdom”; the “sustainability” principle refers to all three components of the triple-bottom-line: economy, environment, society). Yes, the Greens started out as an eco-focused party, but that expanded as work was done to build the parties. Yes, environment remains a top issue for the parties, but that is because it is a top issue for the world.

Personally, in my own work with the party over the past few years, I haven’t worked on any environmental issues (with the exception of one media interview about climate change). I’ve worked on information and policy for social programs (especially seniors and affordable housing), democratic reform and aboriginal rights.

Please re-evaluate your outmoded perspective of assuming that the Green Party is today what it was twenty years ago. Sticking to the past may apply to the traditional political parties, but the Greens are still a party that does change and grow.</soapbox> —GrantNeufeld (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial election results

I removed, and will remove this from the article, because while they may be closely associated or what not, they're not the GPC. I'm happy that you're on the federal council, but Wikipedia isn't a propaganda machine. J 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not propaganda, its fact. The provincial counterparts are just as much a part of the GPC as the federal council (which is very much.) I don't think you realize how closely affiliated These two political divisions work together. I'm just as stubborn as you are, and I have much more experience (I know what I'm talking about.) On this topic anyway... Political junky 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, but those results belong in the articles about the parties themselves, not here. J 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres no reason why they shouldn't be on this article. I hate to repeat myself, but again these provincial counterparts work so closely with the party they most certainly belong in the federal party article. 74.14.128.26 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Cite sources. What you have right now is original research. J 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well firstly you can visit the Green parties website where you can view press archives (that I'm not going to waste my time sorting through, if you want to see, do it on your time) that feature various provincial Green Parties, there electoral successes and policy ideas. Unfortunatly I can't talk about the PD part of the relationship that would really prove my point. However it'd violate the confidentiality form that I'm not going to disobey to prove my point. I don't see why this is so important to you. I was the one who spent an hour putting the chart together and it (again) deserves to be on the page. I'd hate to see that time spent go to waste because something that was made to help people reading the article better understand be wasted by you just because of your opinion (which I will argue against) In this matter anyway... -- 74.14.128.26 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

J, The sources, I would consider the internal links. If you click on them you can read about the elections, and the leaders. Most of which are heavily involved with the GPC like Sharon Labchuk who I talk to frequently and George Read, Alberta Organizer. I'm removing the notice for now. 74.14.128.26 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism. Your material is original research and the onus is on you to cite sources. Failure to do so under policy can be its removal. J (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not original research if I know what I'm talking about. Do you live in Canada J? Are you even a member of the Green Party of Canada? I'm putting it up until you give me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be up. Its vandalism to remove important content and its so sad how much time you seem to waste trying to remove important content when there are other people editing who don't even know what there talking about. J, there are other sections of the article that also doesn't give any sources. there are many articles who also don't give sources. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE ONE REASON because its confidential and go to green.ca and you'll find any info you want. ITS A SOURCE. I will report you if it comes to that, because this is just to sad to deal by myself here. 74.14.128.26 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have you blocked for violating 3RR. I do live in Canada. Please don't resort to personal attacks. See WP:WAX. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, and if you can't do that, it doesn't belong in the article. J (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in Canada, but I once lived in a border area where most of our radio and TV came from Canada, so I know a little bit about the relationship between provincial and federal political parties. It appears to me that the Green Parties in the provinces are not part of the Green Party of Canada (for example, http://www.gpo.ca/about_us/home says "The Green Party of Ontario is independent yet is philosophically aligned with other green parties in Canada and around the world"), so provincial party election results should not be represented as election results for the Green Party of Canada. It would be sensible for this Green Party of Canada article to include some discussion of the federal party's relationship to the provincial parties and how the provincial parties have fared in elections. However, anything that is said about the relationship of the federal and provincial parties must be supported by cited sources in accordance with WP:Verifiability. As GreenJoe says, that policy is not negotiable. --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The provincial “counterparts” are not part of the GPC. The Federal Council is a component of the GPC, the provincial parties are legally — and organizationally — separate entities. While there is overlap between some (perhaps many) of the folks involved in the provincial Green parties and the federal party in Canada, that does not make them the same organizations. Information about the provincial parties belongs on their separate articles. This article is strictly about the “Green Party of Canada”, not “green parties in Canada”. (fyi, I am past-president of a provincial Green Party, a past-candidate, and have worked on Green election campaigns federally and in three provinces — so am not entirely uninformed in this regard) —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

All information in section can be found on history page and information in canadian election pages all on Wikipedia. I did copy and paste most of the text from the main GPC history article, just reworded the text. I wonder when this will become a site that can be updated by anybody, not just a selected group of individuals who decide what stays and what goes. Its frusterating when you want to contribute and waste your time doing so to have it deleted when all info can be found on wikipedia?! do you get paid for this? 74.14.128.26 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I got paid for it, it would make it worthwhile to have to deal with difficult users then. It's frustrating for us when new users can't grasp that there are basic policies that must be followed. Now to address the copyvio issue... if it's simply re-worded, that's fine, so long as it isn't a straight copy and paste. Again, don't forget to cite sources. J (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When there is a dispute like this, the best thing to do is to use this talk page. Tell everyone what changes you'd like to make and ask them to suggest changes and let you know what bothers them about the proposed edits. Then you can work with them to find a solution. Most of the time there will be a version that everyone can live with. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave you two more sources where you requested them. The one could have been found very easily on Wikipedia in the 2004 Canadian election page. 74.14.128.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I had to revert some of your recent edits. As I also alerted you on your user talk page, Wikipedia policy indicates that other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources for an article. If the content is also on another Wikipedia article page with a cited source, you are free to cite that source in this article. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The second citation request, I'm not going to do. Your asking for a citation right after a link to the 1984 election page. I'll work on the others but I strongly feel the second request is pretty stupid 74.14.147.245 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Source 4- please read- covers alot of what is in the whole article, just much more detailed of course. 74.14.147.245 (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Did some major additions and updating so that its more informative and less like whats on the Green Party of Canada site. 74.14.147.245 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal election results

WHY DID SOMEONE DELETE SOME OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION RESULTS? If your going to do that with the Green Party page, why not the other federal parties. Theres no doubt that the Greens fielded candidates in those elections. You don't have a right to delete obvious content. the removal of information is starting to look really silly on everyone. I'm going to have to re do the chart, and its staying up. There is no doubt that they participated in those elections. I don't know what else to say other then its things like this that make Wikipedia look like a bad source of info. 74.14.147.245 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Extra source added, little effort seems to be going into finding references and sources by the people who seem to be involved the most. I hope in the future some of you can do less critiqing and more actual work. Since I found that source on the 1993 election page, and took me maybe five minutes. 74.14.147.245 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Please, can somebody help? The logo is outdated and I don't want to have another edit war with someone who really doesn't care about the improvements I'm trying to make to the page. PLEASE HELP ME! 74.14.147.245 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centrism

74.14.147.245 (talk · contribs) added Centrism to the ideology of the party (in the infobox at the top) without any explanation or citation. Appropriate citations would have to be provided to back up such a claim. In any case, such claims should be documented in the body of the article before being added to the infobox. As it is, the article makes it clear that the party is not in any of the left/centre/right camps (although there are factions within the party who lean toward each of those). —GrantNeufeld (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is "We're not right nor left but forward." and on a political scale including the major parties the Greens would be in the center. They are not centrist everything, but if we were to give them a place on the scale where they best fit in, it would obviously be the center. However I really, REALLY don't care, I don't consider "Green" an ideology, but more of an alliance, or an issue. The Greens have proven that they aren't a one issue party, and both Jim Harris and Elizabeth May have both stated that because the Greens fit right in between the big parties, we appeal to a larger audience, and also attract from all parties equally. but again, its really silly, there was something removed from this comment earlier that was even funnier, but has since been deleted. 74.14.147.245 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Greenjoe, before you suggest we should cleanup the article please explain why. Compared to the articles of the other political parties in Canada, this is probably the best. 74.14.145.191 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a Good Article, but certainly needs improvement by any means. GreenJoe 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Very article needs some improvement GreenJoe, it doesn't require a banner saying so. Its not that bad by any means and once again you haven't given any reasons. Its not cluttered, it provides good information thats always sourced and organized. 70.54.3.60 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)