![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2007–2014. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is a rather ambiguous term which I have removed from the introduction of the article. It would be hard to find a party in Canada that would NOT say that it supports these ideals, though they would have very different conceptions of what they mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.31 ( talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007
It seems that some readers believe that NDP is an extremist leftist party led by Joseph Stalin. Perhaps this page should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.96.86 ( talk) 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I added back in the 1 member of the Senate that the NDP has. NDP recognition is irrelevant to the facts, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. GreenJoe 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed opportunity there sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the logo meant to be an abstract depiction of the Canadian Parliament? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.201.68 ( talk) 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
I suggest that the bulk of my 00:36(CST) April 2nd Post be allowed to stand. Perhaps with some minor edits, eg. some alternate wording for 'so dominated by', or placing the Winnipeg Declaration before the addition, replacing the idea of interchangability with the idea that it is often reported 25% of the vote is simply allotted to labour/union affiliates or (labour) unions. At 25% the article stands much better than at 45%, but it seems to me the intent of the constitution was to extend affiliated membership well beyond unions, and if this were brought into fruition it would cut down on the unions 25%, if this is not reasonable I would at least like to see a discussion of why it isn't Thank you Jethro 82 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp90s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think that we should include the municipal politicians and Miller in particular. None of the federal parties represented in Ottawa have municipal wings and all have members elected as mayors. It is simply true of every party everywhere that its members are active in levels where the party does not itself participate. It reads as though the note is there to say that New Democrats are successful. -- JGGardiner 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that the federal NDP has direct links with its provincial counterparts, unlike the federal Liberals or federal Conservatives, but since this is talking about the federal party, I think this page should be renamed "New Democratic Party of Canada". There are political parties named the "New Democratic Party" in Albania, Saint Vincent, and Sri Lanka. Renaming this article would help alleviate some of the accusations that the English wikipedia is North-American biased. When seaching "New Democratic Party", a disambiguation page should pop up to reduce potential frustration from non-Canadian wikipedia viewers. User:R-41
There are over 2500 pages that link to "New Democratic Party". Of those who want the name changed, who is willing to volunteer to go in and fix all of the links that will now be to a dismbiguation page? It wouldn't actually be 2500 fixes since a few hundred might be from talk pages that don't really have to be corrected, but the remainder would have to be. I think before a change is made, you should sort out amongst yourselves who is going to undertake this time-consuming and tedious task. If the idea is to make "New Democratic Party" a redirect to "New Democratic Party (Canada)", then it would just be a waste of time -- there would be no point renaming the article -- Royalguard11's comment explains well why there is no need to put excess information in the article name. Ground Zero | t 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Canada is voting on October 14, 2008. Please make sure this article is kept current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.121.111 ( talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Who paid for the NDP plane? Is it charter or does Air Canada provide it? -- Zybez ( talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Who cares? Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but I think it's a bit confusing to list the NDP as a centre-left party when the Liberal party is also listed as centre-left as well - given that the NDP is most certainly left of the Liberal party. I'd suggest that the NDP would be better described as Left-wing_politics, as centre-left is really a stretch based on NDP ideals. If anyone knows of any other identifiers that might be better, please post them. If anything, I think describing the NDP as 'centre' anything is disparaging to the party. I'll wait a week or so, and if there are no objections I'll go ahead and make a change. -- Savant99 ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If this was mentioned 4 years ago, (re: Liberal position) then I would agree. However, the Liberals have indeed swung to the left, and there are many in the party that want the Liberals to swing back to the centre. However, from a strict ideology standpoint, I do find it hard to believe that the NDP occupy any part of the 'centre' given their positions on the issues. If anyone can point out centrist ideals that the NDP hold it would be helpful, as I haven't seen any such ideals noted on the actual NDP page itself. It should be noted I don't support a change simply because of the relative position of the Liberal party, it's the NDP ideals that would seem to indicate (to me) that they really don't hold any centrist ideals. I was rooting around on the NDP.CA website to find any references, and I could not find anything that described the party as centrist. However, I did find a page that quoted an article about a party candidate "...said New Democrat Brian Masse, who is the federal Member of Parliament for Windsor West. The NDP is Canada's left-wing party." ( ref) While the text is a quotation of an article, it would stand to reason that they would not republish text that did not represent their party's point of view. Barring any objections, I will make the change and use the link above as a reference to support this change. -- Savant99 ( talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure as to how the NDP in any way occupies the political centre. There is not a single cited reference or source that indicates that they are a centre party and as their own constitution defines them as a party aligned with the socialist movement, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of them occupying the centre. The article itself indicates that one leader "attempted" to move the party towards the centre. Does that not alone verify that they are not a centre party already? Additionally, all of their policies fall on the left side of the spectrum with the focus of more government control over industry, larger social programs and redistribution of wealth from corporations and the wealthy to the poor to middle class. HastelloyX ( talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
How can the Conservative party be considered "centre-right to right" when the NDP is "centre-left", I'd say either change the Conservatives, or put NDP as "centre-left to left"... 99.229.114.180 ( talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The list of policy positions says the party supports reform of the Senate, but the blurb on Lillian Dyck says they don't recognize her because they support abolishing the Senate. Which is true? - Rrius ( talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I really have an issue with the usage of the word "Sweeping". What does it mean to be sweeping? It sounds way too biased. jlam ( talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, after reader this article, I feel as though I have just read a NDP paid advertisement... 216.99.54.62 ( talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
isnt that affilated with the NDP?-- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
where did that go on here?-- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A friend of mine from Canada told me today that the NDP are thinking of changing their name to just democratic party. I hav no links or other scores to back it up, but just infoming wiki to say HEADS UP! and watch for info. IMO, chaning it to Labour, or Labour Co-Operative Party, would be a better name. -- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
New Democratic Party of Canada is the official name of federal NDP 142.150.49.164 ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does the side box refer to the NDP as a party of "democratic socialism"? The party does not campaign as a democratic socialist party. The published summary of the NDP website refers to the NDP directly as "Canada's social democratic party", with no reference whatsoever anywhere on its website to "democratic socialism" or "socialism" (except to say that NDP policies are NOT socialist).
Given the fact the party itself does not identify as socialist, I've removed that reference from the sidebox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 ( talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Democratic Socialism is listed in the Preamble of the Federal NDP Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.168.90 ( talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone find the Federal NDP Constitution so we can end this debate once and for all? Another note, I acknowledge that social democracy is the predominant ideology, but most social democratic parties (if you look at the Socialist International) have democratic socialist streams, such as the NDP Socialist Caucus or Fightback. I would argue that since there is no separation of Federal and Provincial Membership and since the provincial parties clearly have mention of Democratic Socialism in the Constitutional Preamble, we should at least mention place Democratic Socialism as a Minority faction or partnered ideology with Social Democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 ( talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Food for thought... "We will not check our socialism at the door" - Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario New Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 ( talk) 04:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The NDP Constitution as amended in Halifax in 2009 declares in its preamble that " The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs. The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership; The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity and freedom of the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended; and The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."
I see no justification in removing the label 'Democratic Socialism' from the sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.165 ( talk) 13:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"Cut all funding to the Canadian Forces"
I have just recently seen this line in the article. Do we have proof of this? I don't believe it is true. NorthernThunder ( talk) 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Progressivism has been repeatedly been removed from the infobox without discussion or rationale. I would like to discuss its removal here before before it is removed again. MitchellDuce ( talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Progressivism needs to be remove as you have not provided any source of information that the NDP calls themselves progressivism. If we were to list every single ideology that the NDP falls in - then we might as well start a whole new article, listing all possible ideology that NDP has. The ideology list should be clear/simple and summerize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.3.213 ( talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Progressivism forms an important part of their ideology and should remain in the infobox. UBER (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I do have evidence, my early evidence against progressive was that YOU DON'T HAVE any evidence to support progressive. You failed to provide any ration evidence. What you provide are sources for provincials NDP's not the federal version - NONE OF YOUR SOURCE officially declared that the party follows progressivism ideology. Your source simple show a statement from NDP using the word progressive, doesn't mean that they follow progressivism. Harper use the word Socialist couple times, does that make him a socialist? You need to be more civilize, retorting to a cranky child is no way to behave on wikipedia Canatoba ( talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
First off, let's get one thing straight: "Progressive Conservative" is an oxymoron. To be progressive means you believe in and/or advocate for changes or reforms to current polices that would move from an unenlightened position to an enlightened position. To be a conservative means you either oppose any and all changes regardless of their ideological position, or you favor changes that would move towards an unenlightened position. A classic example is that a progressive is for abolishing slavery, while a conservative is for retaining slavery. Or, to give a more modern example, a progressive advocates polices that are not homophobic, while a conservative advocates for or opposes the repealing of polices that are homophobic. In both examples, the two positions are diametrical opposed.
As far as if the NDP is progressive or not, I'd have to say they are. Just based on the definition of the word "progressive", well, strictly speaking they are a branch or sub-category of Progressives called Social Progressives. As far as citing a source for this, well that's just a matter of research. What we need is an objective analysis of the NDP from a academic perspective that doesn't have any hint of a politically influenced opinion. Anybody out there work in the Political Science department of a major university? We need a paper or textbook that specifically analyzes and classifies the NDP as progressive (or not, as the case may be). Then we could cite that work as an objective, scientific, published, third-party work on the subject, and it would be very hard to object to that and stay within the rules of the Wikipedia. Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the ideology "Democratic Socialism" since the NDP does stand anywhere near socialism plus the fact that there is no evidence that suggest the NDP follow socialism ideology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.42.244 ( talk) 03:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted this part "The New Democratic Party began as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a democratic socialist farmers' movement." Which is not 100% as NDP also started off as Canadian Labour Congress. The reason is because the same statement is made twice in the following paragraph when it comes to discussing the CCF. Canatoba ( talk) 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Audrey mclaughlin HCC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
I may be wrong but isn't democratic socialism a factional part of the NDP's Socialist Caucus rather than part of its official ideology? I remember that historically the NDP has called itself "democratic socialist" but I have heard that it changed its constitution and now only refers to itself as "social democratic"?-- R-41 ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:New Democratic Party of Canada has been nominated for discussion. 117Avenue ( talk) 11:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In 2011, the NDP changed its constitution that replaced using the term "democratic socialism" with "social democracy". The reasons for this change have generally been summarized that the term "socialism" in North American politics has taken on a negative connotation - especially after the 2008 United States Presidential Election where conservative Republicans denounced then Democratic Presidential candidate Barrack Obama for allegedly being a "socialist". Essentially that the 2008 US Presidential Election resulted in conservative Republicans associating the word "socialism" with state socialism and amongst more extreme American conservatives, associating "socialism" with communism - particularly Soviet Union-style Marxism-Leninism. Due to the current negative and inflammatory recent North American connotations with the term "socialism", the party has replaced its use with "social democracy" that has more moderate political connotations (even though many social democrats consider themselves moderate socialists, and that many social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International). In addition, at least for the duration of Thomas Mulcair's leadership, many in the party and on the outside are expecting the NDP under Mulcair to de-emphasize the socialist aspect historically associated with the NDP and emphasize progressivism and social democracy in order to not alienate centrist and centre-left voters who may view "socialism" as having negative connotations or that socialist policies are currently unachievable given existing political circumstances.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It also refers to seeking a future "which brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour, co-operative, feminist," and other movements." CBC source for this quote. Since the preamble specifies both, I'm putting in both. I assume, furthermore, that since this new preamble is the settled will of the real-world NDP, it is their consensus which counts. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been _no_ talk page discussion on this. No comments are under this topic since 2012, and the NDP adopted the new preamble _the following year_, so your appeal to previous discussions is pretty obviously specious...there have been none. And since there were discussions, the preamble was passed with the word democratic socialist still in it. The NDP is no longer specifically identifying itself as being a socialist party (and that was a significant development in the preamble change), but the CBC source clearly shows the party still acknowledges the democratic socialist roots of the party. The Socialist Caucus has not been shown the door, they are as much a part of the NDP as any other. There are also many members of the NDP who frankly want nothing to do with the Socialist Caucus, which has a strong Trotskyist element, but who identify as democratic socialist, and many others who object to an artificial distinction between "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" even being drawn in the first place (this is my own point of view, but it is a matter of the factual public record that prominent members of the NDP feel that way, and if you're going to push me on this, I can dig up the necessary quotes proving it). Zachary Klaas ( talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, categorization is best left to experts rather than parties themselves, and AFAIK, the NDP is still grouped along with "socialist" parties, such as Labour, the Socialist Party of France, Pasok and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, all of which are to the right of the NDP. TFD ( talk) 21:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Support per reasons above. The Party (which is a mainstream one not a sect) clearly describes itself as democratic socialist and while that would be enough of itself, there are third party sources to support the identification. To reflect the balance of sources Social Democracy is currently listed first and that is followed by Democratic Socialism. That or variants have been a long standing consensus and its difficult to understand the obsession with removing it. ----Snowded TALK 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the party website: http://www.ndp.ca/logos Their official colours are orange, green and grey (light and dark). Can green be added? Bodo3 ( talk) 21:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Near the '2006' article it shows a logo used by the NDP until 2012 (with the orange NDP print and the green maple leaf), so what is the logo being used in 2012? From what I see they are starting to use that dark grey background with the orange maple leaf and the white 'NDP' print. Shouldn't it be included of the new NDP logo being used in 2012? Bodo3 ( talk) 18:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The firstreference in the intro is a source by Tom Flanagan, a very partisan right-wing political analyst who used to be associated with the Reform Party of Canada and now associated with the Conservative Party of Canada. Also Flanagan is a very unhinged, he publicly stated in a television news interview that he wished a drone aircraft be used to assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. A less unhinged person would be taken more seriously here. It is an extremely inappropriate choice of a source, it would be like having Rush Limbaugh as the first reference on the Barrack Obama article. Please select another reference from a less partisan political analyst.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused by the information presented in the 'preceded by' in the info box. I'm under the impression that the NDP was created as a merger between CCF and New Party. When in fact it was the CCF and Canadian Labour Congress merger that created the New Party which transformed into the NDP. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to add only the 'New Party' in the info box titled 'preceded by' and remove the CCF reference? The purpose of this suggestion is to avoid mistaken impression. Bodo3 ( talk) 17:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Is "merger" the correct term in this sentence in the second paragraph: "The NDP was founded in 1961 out of the merger of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)." The CCF ceased to exist, but the Canadian Labour Congress still exists, as a separate entity from the NDP, but with close links, such as the 25% voting interest mentioned in the article. Would a term like "alliance" be better? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 16:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to challenge an earlier consensus, but I believe that "left of centre to centre-left" would probably fit the scope of the Party's identity better than "centre-left". While I would agree that the Party has drifted to the centre under the leaderships of the late Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair, there is a strong and vibrant left-wing represented amongst the rank and file (and even within the NDP Caucus itself). Indeed, many of the leadership candidates, possibly most, in the upcoming leadership race will likely run to the Left of Mulcair.
The Conservative Party is listed as "right of centre to centre-right," and the Liberals are listed as "centre to centre-left," owing to the fact that there is ideological diversity within those parties. The NDP is no less ideologically diverse (speaking as a card-carrying New Democrat, who has been active in Party activism for over half a decade). Regarding the Party's provincial counterparts, some are more moderate than others, ergo "centre-left" strictly doesn't do all justice. For example, the Nova Scotia NDP of Gary Buril has moved decidedly to the Left since its defeat in the last provincial election, and arguably the British Columbia NDP has always been further Left than its counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I am going to amend the section, and I hope it doesn't draw any protest Chris-Gilmore77 ( talk) 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The consensus for "political position" was "centre-left". As the Liberals are, according to Wiki, "centre" , while the Conservatives are "centre-right"; the NDP is "centre-left", not "left-wing". There are plenty of sources for this, that were provided when the consensus was made last time regarding this. There was also a note placed AFTER the consensus was reached, asking that no one change it without a new consensus.
The NDP is on the centre-left of the Canadian political spectrum; ESPECIALLY under Thomas Mulcair. "Social Democracy" is a centre-left ideology.
Also, the NDP's provincial counterparts are all listed as "centre-left". They are a typical "centre-left, social-democratic political party".
Perhaps "centre-left to left-wing" might also be acceptable (although even THAT would be questionable), however "left-wing" alone is out of step with not only consensus, but also in relation to the descriptions listed for the other two major federal parties in Canada, and also the NDP's provincial cousins.
Will someone please fix this, as I cannot right this moment? 174.92.92.220 ( talk) 18:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I just checked out the source that was used to change it to "left-wing". It is from an informal blog. Plus, that blog's main/home page (www.canadapage.org) says that it is now defunct because of better sources available now.
I replaced it with a reliable source (with a PHD).
I shouldn't have had to do that, but I was too lazy to dig through the history to find the ORIGINAL MANY sources that had been used (AND had consensus around them too), that confirmed that "centre-left" is appropriate. 174.92.92.220 ( talk) 19:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to New Democratic Party, dab page moved to New Democratic Party (disambiguation). The consensus is that simply "New Democratic Party" is the common name (as well as official name) of the federal party and also that it is the primary topic. Jenks24 ( talk) 19:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
New Democratic Party (Canada) →
New Democratic Party of Canada – All the points of
WP:CRITERIA point towards this title being preferred.
Given that the above requested move may be closed in as few as two days and there appears not to be consensus to move, I'm wondering if there is significant opposition to TFD and 117Avenue's suggestion of moving the article back to its old location: New Democratic Party. Graham11 ( talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The CBC article refers to the "Ontario NDP" leader and all the other articles are clearly referring to Ontario politics. It's a bit like saying "Mayor of Toronto" is not a common name, because some references will say "Toronto Mayor Rob Ford", while articles about Toronto council will just refer to "the mayor." So do we change the article " Mayor of Toronto" to "Mayor (Toronto)". Think that helps readers navigate to that article? What is the point of your comment anyway? TFD ( talk) 03:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Note to closer: Skookum1 has engaged in WP:CANVASing targeted at an audience they admit is partisan here. TDL ( talk) 04:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
A related discussion has began at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 11#Category:New Democratic Party (Canada). 117Avenue ( talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2007–2014. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is a rather ambiguous term which I have removed from the introduction of the article. It would be hard to find a party in Canada that would NOT say that it supports these ideals, though they would have very different conceptions of what they mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.31 ( talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007
It seems that some readers believe that NDP is an extremist leftist party led by Joseph Stalin. Perhaps this page should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.96.86 ( talk) 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I added back in the 1 member of the Senate that the NDP has. NDP recognition is irrelevant to the facts, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. GreenJoe 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed opportunity there sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the logo meant to be an abstract depiction of the Canadian Parliament? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.201.68 ( talk) 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
I suggest that the bulk of my 00:36(CST) April 2nd Post be allowed to stand. Perhaps with some minor edits, eg. some alternate wording for 'so dominated by', or placing the Winnipeg Declaration before the addition, replacing the idea of interchangability with the idea that it is often reported 25% of the vote is simply allotted to labour/union affiliates or (labour) unions. At 25% the article stands much better than at 45%, but it seems to me the intent of the constitution was to extend affiliated membership well beyond unions, and if this were brought into fruition it would cut down on the unions 25%, if this is not reasonable I would at least like to see a discussion of why it isn't Thank you Jethro 82 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp90s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think that we should include the municipal politicians and Miller in particular. None of the federal parties represented in Ottawa have municipal wings and all have members elected as mayors. It is simply true of every party everywhere that its members are active in levels where the party does not itself participate. It reads as though the note is there to say that New Democrats are successful. -- JGGardiner 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that the federal NDP has direct links with its provincial counterparts, unlike the federal Liberals or federal Conservatives, but since this is talking about the federal party, I think this page should be renamed "New Democratic Party of Canada". There are political parties named the "New Democratic Party" in Albania, Saint Vincent, and Sri Lanka. Renaming this article would help alleviate some of the accusations that the English wikipedia is North-American biased. When seaching "New Democratic Party", a disambiguation page should pop up to reduce potential frustration from non-Canadian wikipedia viewers. User:R-41
There are over 2500 pages that link to "New Democratic Party". Of those who want the name changed, who is willing to volunteer to go in and fix all of the links that will now be to a dismbiguation page? It wouldn't actually be 2500 fixes since a few hundred might be from talk pages that don't really have to be corrected, but the remainder would have to be. I think before a change is made, you should sort out amongst yourselves who is going to undertake this time-consuming and tedious task. If the idea is to make "New Democratic Party" a redirect to "New Democratic Party (Canada)", then it would just be a waste of time -- there would be no point renaming the article -- Royalguard11's comment explains well why there is no need to put excess information in the article name. Ground Zero | t 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Canada is voting on October 14, 2008. Please make sure this article is kept current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.121.111 ( talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Who paid for the NDP plane? Is it charter or does Air Canada provide it? -- Zybez ( talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Who cares? Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but I think it's a bit confusing to list the NDP as a centre-left party when the Liberal party is also listed as centre-left as well - given that the NDP is most certainly left of the Liberal party. I'd suggest that the NDP would be better described as Left-wing_politics, as centre-left is really a stretch based on NDP ideals. If anyone knows of any other identifiers that might be better, please post them. If anything, I think describing the NDP as 'centre' anything is disparaging to the party. I'll wait a week or so, and if there are no objections I'll go ahead and make a change. -- Savant99 ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If this was mentioned 4 years ago, (re: Liberal position) then I would agree. However, the Liberals have indeed swung to the left, and there are many in the party that want the Liberals to swing back to the centre. However, from a strict ideology standpoint, I do find it hard to believe that the NDP occupy any part of the 'centre' given their positions on the issues. If anyone can point out centrist ideals that the NDP hold it would be helpful, as I haven't seen any such ideals noted on the actual NDP page itself. It should be noted I don't support a change simply because of the relative position of the Liberal party, it's the NDP ideals that would seem to indicate (to me) that they really don't hold any centrist ideals. I was rooting around on the NDP.CA website to find any references, and I could not find anything that described the party as centrist. However, I did find a page that quoted an article about a party candidate "...said New Democrat Brian Masse, who is the federal Member of Parliament for Windsor West. The NDP is Canada's left-wing party." ( ref) While the text is a quotation of an article, it would stand to reason that they would not republish text that did not represent their party's point of view. Barring any objections, I will make the change and use the link above as a reference to support this change. -- Savant99 ( talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure as to how the NDP in any way occupies the political centre. There is not a single cited reference or source that indicates that they are a centre party and as their own constitution defines them as a party aligned with the socialist movement, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of them occupying the centre. The article itself indicates that one leader "attempted" to move the party towards the centre. Does that not alone verify that they are not a centre party already? Additionally, all of their policies fall on the left side of the spectrum with the focus of more government control over industry, larger social programs and redistribution of wealth from corporations and the wealthy to the poor to middle class. HastelloyX ( talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
How can the Conservative party be considered "centre-right to right" when the NDP is "centre-left", I'd say either change the Conservatives, or put NDP as "centre-left to left"... 99.229.114.180 ( talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The list of policy positions says the party supports reform of the Senate, but the blurb on Lillian Dyck says they don't recognize her because they support abolishing the Senate. Which is true? - Rrius ( talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I really have an issue with the usage of the word "Sweeping". What does it mean to be sweeping? It sounds way too biased. jlam ( talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, after reader this article, I feel as though I have just read a NDP paid advertisement... 216.99.54.62 ( talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
isnt that affilated with the NDP?-- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
where did that go on here?-- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A friend of mine from Canada told me today that the NDP are thinking of changing their name to just democratic party. I hav no links or other scores to back it up, but just infoming wiki to say HEADS UP! and watch for info. IMO, chaning it to Labour, or Labour Co-Operative Party, would be a better name. -- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
New Democratic Party of Canada is the official name of federal NDP 142.150.49.164 ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does the side box refer to the NDP as a party of "democratic socialism"? The party does not campaign as a democratic socialist party. The published summary of the NDP website refers to the NDP directly as "Canada's social democratic party", with no reference whatsoever anywhere on its website to "democratic socialism" or "socialism" (except to say that NDP policies are NOT socialist).
Given the fact the party itself does not identify as socialist, I've removed that reference from the sidebox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 ( talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Democratic Socialism is listed in the Preamble of the Federal NDP Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.168.90 ( talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone find the Federal NDP Constitution so we can end this debate once and for all? Another note, I acknowledge that social democracy is the predominant ideology, but most social democratic parties (if you look at the Socialist International) have democratic socialist streams, such as the NDP Socialist Caucus or Fightback. I would argue that since there is no separation of Federal and Provincial Membership and since the provincial parties clearly have mention of Democratic Socialism in the Constitutional Preamble, we should at least mention place Democratic Socialism as a Minority faction or partnered ideology with Social Democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 ( talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Food for thought... "We will not check our socialism at the door" - Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario New Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 ( talk) 04:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The NDP Constitution as amended in Halifax in 2009 declares in its preamble that " The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs. The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership; The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity and freedom of the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended; and The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."
I see no justification in removing the label 'Democratic Socialism' from the sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.165 ( talk) 13:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"Cut all funding to the Canadian Forces"
I have just recently seen this line in the article. Do we have proof of this? I don't believe it is true. NorthernThunder ( talk) 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Progressivism has been repeatedly been removed from the infobox without discussion or rationale. I would like to discuss its removal here before before it is removed again. MitchellDuce ( talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Progressivism needs to be remove as you have not provided any source of information that the NDP calls themselves progressivism. If we were to list every single ideology that the NDP falls in - then we might as well start a whole new article, listing all possible ideology that NDP has. The ideology list should be clear/simple and summerize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.3.213 ( talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Progressivism forms an important part of their ideology and should remain in the infobox. UBER (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I do have evidence, my early evidence against progressive was that YOU DON'T HAVE any evidence to support progressive. You failed to provide any ration evidence. What you provide are sources for provincials NDP's not the federal version - NONE OF YOUR SOURCE officially declared that the party follows progressivism ideology. Your source simple show a statement from NDP using the word progressive, doesn't mean that they follow progressivism. Harper use the word Socialist couple times, does that make him a socialist? You need to be more civilize, retorting to a cranky child is no way to behave on wikipedia Canatoba ( talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
First off, let's get one thing straight: "Progressive Conservative" is an oxymoron. To be progressive means you believe in and/or advocate for changes or reforms to current polices that would move from an unenlightened position to an enlightened position. To be a conservative means you either oppose any and all changes regardless of their ideological position, or you favor changes that would move towards an unenlightened position. A classic example is that a progressive is for abolishing slavery, while a conservative is for retaining slavery. Or, to give a more modern example, a progressive advocates polices that are not homophobic, while a conservative advocates for or opposes the repealing of polices that are homophobic. In both examples, the two positions are diametrical opposed.
As far as if the NDP is progressive or not, I'd have to say they are. Just based on the definition of the word "progressive", well, strictly speaking they are a branch or sub-category of Progressives called Social Progressives. As far as citing a source for this, well that's just a matter of research. What we need is an objective analysis of the NDP from a academic perspective that doesn't have any hint of a politically influenced opinion. Anybody out there work in the Political Science department of a major university? We need a paper or textbook that specifically analyzes and classifies the NDP as progressive (or not, as the case may be). Then we could cite that work as an objective, scientific, published, third-party work on the subject, and it would be very hard to object to that and stay within the rules of the Wikipedia. Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the ideology "Democratic Socialism" since the NDP does stand anywhere near socialism plus the fact that there is no evidence that suggest the NDP follow socialism ideology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.42.244 ( talk) 03:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted this part "The New Democratic Party began as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a democratic socialist farmers' movement." Which is not 100% as NDP also started off as Canadian Labour Congress. The reason is because the same statement is made twice in the following paragraph when it comes to discussing the CCF. Canatoba ( talk) 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Audrey mclaughlin HCC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
I may be wrong but isn't democratic socialism a factional part of the NDP's Socialist Caucus rather than part of its official ideology? I remember that historically the NDP has called itself "democratic socialist" but I have heard that it changed its constitution and now only refers to itself as "social democratic"?-- R-41 ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:New Democratic Party of Canada has been nominated for discussion. 117Avenue ( talk) 11:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In 2011, the NDP changed its constitution that replaced using the term "democratic socialism" with "social democracy". The reasons for this change have generally been summarized that the term "socialism" in North American politics has taken on a negative connotation - especially after the 2008 United States Presidential Election where conservative Republicans denounced then Democratic Presidential candidate Barrack Obama for allegedly being a "socialist". Essentially that the 2008 US Presidential Election resulted in conservative Republicans associating the word "socialism" with state socialism and amongst more extreme American conservatives, associating "socialism" with communism - particularly Soviet Union-style Marxism-Leninism. Due to the current negative and inflammatory recent North American connotations with the term "socialism", the party has replaced its use with "social democracy" that has more moderate political connotations (even though many social democrats consider themselves moderate socialists, and that many social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International). In addition, at least for the duration of Thomas Mulcair's leadership, many in the party and on the outside are expecting the NDP under Mulcair to de-emphasize the socialist aspect historically associated with the NDP and emphasize progressivism and social democracy in order to not alienate centrist and centre-left voters who may view "socialism" as having negative connotations or that socialist policies are currently unachievable given existing political circumstances.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It also refers to seeking a future "which brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour, co-operative, feminist," and other movements." CBC source for this quote. Since the preamble specifies both, I'm putting in both. I assume, furthermore, that since this new preamble is the settled will of the real-world NDP, it is their consensus which counts. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been _no_ talk page discussion on this. No comments are under this topic since 2012, and the NDP adopted the new preamble _the following year_, so your appeal to previous discussions is pretty obviously specious...there have been none. And since there were discussions, the preamble was passed with the word democratic socialist still in it. The NDP is no longer specifically identifying itself as being a socialist party (and that was a significant development in the preamble change), but the CBC source clearly shows the party still acknowledges the democratic socialist roots of the party. The Socialist Caucus has not been shown the door, they are as much a part of the NDP as any other. There are also many members of the NDP who frankly want nothing to do with the Socialist Caucus, which has a strong Trotskyist element, but who identify as democratic socialist, and many others who object to an artificial distinction between "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" even being drawn in the first place (this is my own point of view, but it is a matter of the factual public record that prominent members of the NDP feel that way, and if you're going to push me on this, I can dig up the necessary quotes proving it). Zachary Klaas ( talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, categorization is best left to experts rather than parties themselves, and AFAIK, the NDP is still grouped along with "socialist" parties, such as Labour, the Socialist Party of France, Pasok and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, all of which are to the right of the NDP. TFD ( talk) 21:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Support per reasons above. The Party (which is a mainstream one not a sect) clearly describes itself as democratic socialist and while that would be enough of itself, there are third party sources to support the identification. To reflect the balance of sources Social Democracy is currently listed first and that is followed by Democratic Socialism. That or variants have been a long standing consensus and its difficult to understand the obsession with removing it. ----Snowded TALK 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the party website: http://www.ndp.ca/logos Their official colours are orange, green and grey (light and dark). Can green be added? Bodo3 ( talk) 21:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Near the '2006' article it shows a logo used by the NDP until 2012 (with the orange NDP print and the green maple leaf), so what is the logo being used in 2012? From what I see they are starting to use that dark grey background with the orange maple leaf and the white 'NDP' print. Shouldn't it be included of the new NDP logo being used in 2012? Bodo3 ( talk) 18:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The firstreference in the intro is a source by Tom Flanagan, a very partisan right-wing political analyst who used to be associated with the Reform Party of Canada and now associated with the Conservative Party of Canada. Also Flanagan is a very unhinged, he publicly stated in a television news interview that he wished a drone aircraft be used to assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. A less unhinged person would be taken more seriously here. It is an extremely inappropriate choice of a source, it would be like having Rush Limbaugh as the first reference on the Barrack Obama article. Please select another reference from a less partisan political analyst.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused by the information presented in the 'preceded by' in the info box. I'm under the impression that the NDP was created as a merger between CCF and New Party. When in fact it was the CCF and Canadian Labour Congress merger that created the New Party which transformed into the NDP. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to add only the 'New Party' in the info box titled 'preceded by' and remove the CCF reference? The purpose of this suggestion is to avoid mistaken impression. Bodo3 ( talk) 17:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Is "merger" the correct term in this sentence in the second paragraph: "The NDP was founded in 1961 out of the merger of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)." The CCF ceased to exist, but the Canadian Labour Congress still exists, as a separate entity from the NDP, but with close links, such as the 25% voting interest mentioned in the article. Would a term like "alliance" be better? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 16:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to challenge an earlier consensus, but I believe that "left of centre to centre-left" would probably fit the scope of the Party's identity better than "centre-left". While I would agree that the Party has drifted to the centre under the leaderships of the late Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair, there is a strong and vibrant left-wing represented amongst the rank and file (and even within the NDP Caucus itself). Indeed, many of the leadership candidates, possibly most, in the upcoming leadership race will likely run to the Left of Mulcair.
The Conservative Party is listed as "right of centre to centre-right," and the Liberals are listed as "centre to centre-left," owing to the fact that there is ideological diversity within those parties. The NDP is no less ideologically diverse (speaking as a card-carrying New Democrat, who has been active in Party activism for over half a decade). Regarding the Party's provincial counterparts, some are more moderate than others, ergo "centre-left" strictly doesn't do all justice. For example, the Nova Scotia NDP of Gary Buril has moved decidedly to the Left since its defeat in the last provincial election, and arguably the British Columbia NDP has always been further Left than its counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I am going to amend the section, and I hope it doesn't draw any protest Chris-Gilmore77 ( talk) 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The consensus for "political position" was "centre-left". As the Liberals are, according to Wiki, "centre" , while the Conservatives are "centre-right"; the NDP is "centre-left", not "left-wing". There are plenty of sources for this, that were provided when the consensus was made last time regarding this. There was also a note placed AFTER the consensus was reached, asking that no one change it without a new consensus.
The NDP is on the centre-left of the Canadian political spectrum; ESPECIALLY under Thomas Mulcair. "Social Democracy" is a centre-left ideology.
Also, the NDP's provincial counterparts are all listed as "centre-left". They are a typical "centre-left, social-democratic political party".
Perhaps "centre-left to left-wing" might also be acceptable (although even THAT would be questionable), however "left-wing" alone is out of step with not only consensus, but also in relation to the descriptions listed for the other two major federal parties in Canada, and also the NDP's provincial cousins.
Will someone please fix this, as I cannot right this moment? 174.92.92.220 ( talk) 18:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I just checked out the source that was used to change it to "left-wing". It is from an informal blog. Plus, that blog's main/home page (www.canadapage.org) says that it is now defunct because of better sources available now.
I replaced it with a reliable source (with a PHD).
I shouldn't have had to do that, but I was too lazy to dig through the history to find the ORIGINAL MANY sources that had been used (AND had consensus around them too), that confirmed that "centre-left" is appropriate. 174.92.92.220 ( talk) 19:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to New Democratic Party, dab page moved to New Democratic Party (disambiguation). The consensus is that simply "New Democratic Party" is the common name (as well as official name) of the federal party and also that it is the primary topic. Jenks24 ( talk) 19:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
New Democratic Party (Canada) →
New Democratic Party of Canada – All the points of
WP:CRITERIA point towards this title being preferred.
Given that the above requested move may be closed in as few as two days and there appears not to be consensus to move, I'm wondering if there is significant opposition to TFD and 117Avenue's suggestion of moving the article back to its old location: New Democratic Party. Graham11 ( talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The CBC article refers to the "Ontario NDP" leader and all the other articles are clearly referring to Ontario politics. It's a bit like saying "Mayor of Toronto" is not a common name, because some references will say "Toronto Mayor Rob Ford", while articles about Toronto council will just refer to "the mayor." So do we change the article " Mayor of Toronto" to "Mayor (Toronto)". Think that helps readers navigate to that article? What is the point of your comment anyway? TFD ( talk) 03:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Note to closer: Skookum1 has engaged in WP:CANVASing targeted at an audience they admit is partisan here. TDL ( talk) 04:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
A related discussion has began at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 11#Category:New Democratic Party (Canada). 117Avenue ( talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)