Talk:Green Party of Canada/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Green Party of Canada/Archive 1 was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-02-16

It seemed unencyclopedic to have two versions displayed together, so I reconciled them into one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Green_Party_of_Canada&diff=0&oldid=3390873

More critical parts in the current version were introduced here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Green_Party_of_Canada&diff=3382522&oldid=3374759

I decided to leave in the points made, but attempted to reduce the evil-soundingness of the apparent subversion of green values. I hope this has been acceptable.

Richard Schwarting - 2004.04.30 - 1:28AM EST

Contents

Reversion of May 25

If 142.173.140.214 is wondering why I removed his/her changes, it was because it seemed to me that they were not in keeping with standard Wiki format. The external link is already included at the bottom of the article. Rosemary Amey 17:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Edit of Sept 17, 2004

Fixed negative pov in second paragraph with something more balanced.

References: Ontario poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid poll and released September 9 by CFTO/The Globe and Mail/CFRB http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2356

Canada-wide survey conducted by Oracle Research for the Canadian Green Party, 83.2% of voters aged 18-34 said they wanted to see the Green Party included in the televised national debates. (GPC Press release June 4 2004)

Edit of Dec 9, 2004

Changed ideology "eco-capitalist" (negative pov) to "progressive", "green" and "populist" -- The Green Party of Canada is not as "left" as some other Green Parties, but it is not certainly not "right-wing" as some Canadian lefties argue.

references: [1] - latest federal platform.

I'm not going to revert this edit, but it might be worth noting that many figures *within* the Green Party have become disillusioned with its recent movements toward "eco-capitalism" (as per the recent challenge to Harris's leadership). CJCurrie 02:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is little evidence of the "eco-capitalist" policies being "the problem". There is a great deal of evidence of what is going on inside the GPC, notably at openpolitics.ca, a Canadian wiki-based service devoted to open politics and transparency. Of four resignation letters dated June 8 to 19, 2005, from elected officers of the party, heads of committees, and so on, not one mentions any policy issue. They are all about internal procedural abuses. Read them yourself:

All of these people seem to be saying roughly the same thing in different words, and none of it has anything to do with "policy" except that Di Iorio's resignation mentions a failure to deal with the federal budget, and failure to attend a major municipal conference. A review of the letters suggests that there are issues around handling of the party's funds.

User:Spinboy is enforcing his apparently pro-GPC POV by reverting the edits that make note of these internal issues. His excuses are transparent, and fraudulent: while openpolitics.ca is a wiki, the letters presented are copies distributed via the GPC-members yahoogroup, and have been validated by their own authors several times. It is not "original research" simply to combine comments made in multiple resignation letters and many other internal forums to note that there is a more general issue within this party.

Watch for User:Spinboy's edits, and revert them without comment if he asserts his POV any further. Every time he does so, the article should become more specific and detailed about the problems in the GPC. That's the only way to discourage these spin doctor types.

No personal attacks. I am not a member of the GPC, so please don't insult me like that. I'm trying to maintain the blanace of the article. Your edits are inflamatory and POV. -- Spinboy 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's the fourth different excuse you have offered to keep true but unfavourable information about the GPC out of this article. If there is inflammatory information it is in the resignation letters from people in official positions - read them, please, and determine whether what is said about them in the article is a fair report.
As for "POV", this is a political party and has its own POV, and everything is a POV anyway - only an idiot expects "that is POV" to stand up to scrutiny - please explain exactly what statements are taking a POV that is not being fairly attributed. In most cases, as long as the quotes are attributed to those who wrote them in official correspondence, that is "neutral". You are confusing neutrality in reporting, with some kind of ideological balance, which Wikipedia is not here to provide. Consider:
Objective information such as the actual average number of edits on the GPC Living Platform is fair game, easily verified, and given the January date set for the next election, it is also fair to say that the deadline can't be met by that method.
It is also easy to verify that the letters relate to internal matters, not external ones.

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. -- Spinboy 02:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone believes in pseudonyms. Some people prefer to use raw IP numbers for legal accountability, or real names for personal reputation, or nothing at all. If you aren't using one of those two options, you don't have the right to demand anyone else give you a label to spit at.

Spinboy is violating the three-revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. -- Spinboy 03:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you were the one who "reverted the article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours". Each time I restored the article you censored, which was Green Party of Canada, I changed the wording to deal with issues you had raised, although it was based on a revert. This is not a violation of the three-revert rule, but your behaviour is.
...This text was modified by User:spinboy... And, it is you who did not discuss the edits. Your violation has been reported:

User:Spinboy

Three revert rule violation on Green Party of Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Spinboy (talk • contribs):

Several attempts to neutrally report serious internal debates within this party, from credible sources summarized at Talk:Green Party of Canada, were reverted by Spinboy under several different transparent excuses. His fourth revert was marked a minor edit in bad faith, after a clear warning not to revert any further edits without discussing them and justifying his claims that they are somehow "inflammatory" or "POV" (words typically used by promoters of political parties as excuses to censor the truth about them). What's more, he self-righteously accuses those who wrote several different versions, in an attempt to satisfy his objections, of violating the three-revert rule, when none of the edits made by them were reverts. By contrast, all Spinboy's edits were actual reverts, and he's violated the rule deliberately.

Eco-capitalist

I've been uncomfortable with this label for quite a while. I tried search the GPC website for "eco-capitalist" and came up with absolutely nothing. If this is a term that the GPC itself does not use, then I worry that it is POV, and would be rejected by a GPC member. I would be comfortable with CJCurrie's amendment proposed above, though, as a way of linking to that term.Kevintoronto 20:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed often, apparently. The term is acceptable seemingly to both those who like that label, and those who do not. Those who do not like that label tend also not to like the party or its direction. Accordingly it is probably neutral.
As as recently joined member of the GPC I don't think that the term is innately wrong but I will point out that this article is the first place I have seen the word. If it is a way of refering to the Green tax shift, then my opinion is that it reflects only a portion of the policy and should placed along side "progressive" or "socially progressive" as well as the 6 key values highlited more strongly.

dispute

I don't believe the edits made by 142.177.7.152 are either neutral as per policy, or factual, and I totally dispute the article. -- Spinboy 3 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

This is nonsense. WHAT exactly is disputed? You have said nothing yet.
The prior version of this version of the talk page which you deliberately censored answered to your "concerns", for instance: "Objective information such as the actual average number of edits on the GPC Living Platform is fair game, easily verified, and given the January date set for the next election, it is also fair to say that the deadline can't be met by that method." The absurd statement that the republication of the resignation letters in a wiki makes them invalid is just stupid.
Every political party has its troubles. This party is the same as every other party in Canada, some of which have had far more visible troubles. The fact that this party is minor and hard to find out about doesn't mean that the neutral position is any nicer to them than it is to anyone else.
Deleting statements from the talk page, adding a "dispute" notice when there is in fact no specific dispute whatsoever, is acting in bad faith:
You have already violated the 3RR, and custom regarding talk pages. You do not have the right to do these things. You should leave this page alone, at least until you have read the actual evidence in those letters.
I didn't delete anything from the talk page, except stuff that violated the policy on no personal attacks, so please keep your slander to yourself. -- Spinboy 4 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
Sorry, it violates policy to censor comments without at least marking it with a "..." or something to indicate that you modified them from the originals. You calling facts "slander" is in fact a personal attack, but who cares?
I'm not acting in bad faith either, I'm allowed to dispute what you put there. That's why we have those tags. When you can be rational and stop attacking me, I'll discuss it with you. -- Spinboy 4 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
You have NOT disputed ANYTHING: you have said absolutely NOTHING about the facts in this article. You have cited NO specific coloured language. There is NO dispute. And the notice will disappear unless you produce some genuine objections.
Asking people who are irrationally reacting to stop doing so is not an "attack".
Your sources are dubious, you point to another wiki, it's hardly anything conclusive except what you could have posted yourself, which makes what you posted original research which violated Wikipedia policy on no original research. You don't cite sources for this so called "new party." Again, another wiki isn't acceptable.
It is widely believed that these internal conflicts, which cost the party candidates as well as internal officers, will prevent it from repeating its 2004 performance of fielding 308 candidates. A particular area of weakness is Atlantic Canada where there are few qualified organizers and most are declared in some way or other against the current central party council. -- Spinboy 4 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

1993 Green Party of Ontario convention

Hello,

Does anyone have any information about the 1993 GPO leadership contest? Specifically: what was the final vote total, were there any other candidates besides Jim Harris and Frank de Jong, where did it take place, how many were in attendance?

1996 best riding?

The Green Party won no seats in 1996. Maybe we should mention the top 3 ridings where they came closest to winning, just to show where their best potential seats would be in the future. Were they even 2nd place in any riding? Does anybody have the data?--Sonjaaa 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, there was no federal election in 1996. Were you thinking of 1997, or a provincial election. Results for the federal election of 1997 can be found here. Also available are preliminary results for the 2006 election. Mindmatrix 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal above that information on the Green Party's best electoral results (by riding) be included in this article -- I think top three or anywhere else that they might have done exceptionally well. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the Party actually polled second in a recent by-election, beating the Conservatives and the NDP. This should definitely be included somewhere. --Todeswalzer|Talk 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Green-off 2006: Which Green is the Green for the Greens?

"yellowgreen".
"forestgreen".


Help me change the official Wikipedia Canadian Green Party colour to my favorite! The current radioactive sewage choice also has detriment of being the NDP's secondary colour. The current party colour, used in templates and the such, can be seen at Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green --Colle 05:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Five reasons The Tom 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC):
  1. Major parties need to have a light colour because in our current template system text gets overlaid here and there for the major parties, but not the minors. Your green is too dark.
  2. There's a cosmetic bonus in that tonally speaking, the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Greens are in the same ballpark in terms of colour intensity, darkness and so on. They work well as a set.
  3. There are no shortage of other parties that have used green (Reform Party of Canada, Confederation of Regions Party of Canada, Libertarian Party of Canada, Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada etc.). We'd need to move everyone else to accomodate the above proposal.
  4. Other green parties around the world use the same shade of green in their template system. This is again because there are often other green-coloured parties that need to be accomodated and are in the dark green end of the spectrum. Note Australian Greens vs National Party of Australia; Green Party of England and Wales vs Plaid Cymru; Green Party (Ireland) vs Fianna Fail
  5. The colour was chosen as a yellow + green summation (much the same way the Progressive Conservatives have a reddish hint in them). The Green Party lawn sign next door to my house is about 80% yellow and 20% green. For whatever reasons, the Green Party seems disinclined to use a largely green palette.
Looks to me like an aesthetic NPOV violation! Lets have accuracy over cosmetics! Colle05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with The Tom; the main point here being point #1 there was a lengthy debate at some point about the problem of having text on top of colours because it creates accessibility problems for users with bad eyesight, colour blindness or low resolution monitors. With the Greens as a major party on candidate tables in elections, changing their colour to a darker shade would create a serious accessibility problem. - Jord

leadership challenge?

There was a report recently in the Hill Times stating that Elizabeth May was resigning as executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada in order to run for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. Homey 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Green Party of Canada/Archive 1 has failed for the following reason:

No references Tarret 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice of you to give your reasons. Ardenn 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Progressive/regressive taxation

In repsonse tot he request for comment, a green tax shift is not a priori regressive. It depends on the design. If, for example, higher taxes on polluting activities are used to pay for income tax reductions/refundable tax credits for low-income people, a green tax shift could be designed to be as progressive or more progressive than the current tax system. On the other hand, if higher taxes are levied on polluting activities in order to pay for lower income taxes across the board, a green tax shift could reduce the progressivity of the tax system. Ground Zero | t 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a message board. Ardenn 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ground Zero was responding to a request for comment at the Canadian notice board which asked "is the 'Green Tax Shift a regressive tax?" So the post seems appropriate in that context. --JGGardiner 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that. Thanks. Ardenn 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

eco-capitalism

Eric, the term "eco-capitalist" refers to a genuine political stream of thought so to dismiss it as NDP rhetoric is incorrect. See the eco-capitalism article and compare it to the policies of the GPC under Jim Harris. Can you identify what in the GPC platform contradicts eco-capitalism? And remember, eco-capitalism isn't the sole identifier for the GPC but one of two in the same manner as the NDP is identified as both social democratic and democratic socialist in recognition of the two most prominent streams in that party (not withstanding the fact that many of the NDP's opponents use the "socialist" label in the same manner against the NDP that you suggest NDPers use the "eco-capitalist" label against the GPC.Homey 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


While there are certainly some things that have been expressed by some Green Party of Canada members and representatives (including outgoing leader Jim Harris) that could be seen as "eco-capitalist", and there have been some policies and platform items that could be considered as falling under that category, the party as a whole, its policies and platforms as a whole, can no more be encompassed under "eco-capitalist" than they could all be called "eco-socialist," "eco-anarchist," "eco-etc.". It is a deliberately diverse party that is willing to consider ideas and directions from throughout the old-school left-right political spectrum - and from outside and beyond that narrow spectrum. But the party is not aligned with any part of that spectrum.

Additionally, I am not aware of the party ever identifying or allying itself with any particular "ism" beyond the Green values/principles adopted by Green Parties throughout the world.

Thus, the only ideological label that can be fairly applied in a NPOV manner is "Green". (Which, given it's core emphasis on embracing a diversity of perspectives and solutions, could be reasonably considered as a form of anti-ideology.)

All that said, I would consider it completely legitimate to bring up the accusations of the party being "capitalist" or "socialist" or "anarchist" or "authoritarian" (or any of the numerous other ideological bents the party has been accused of over the years) in a section on "Controversies" in the article.

—GrantNeufeld 05:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

eco-capitalism

How many of the following policies mentioned in the eco-capitalism article were in the last two GPC election platforms - I recall GPI, full cost accounting, green tax shift, emissions training amongst other:

Eco-capitalist monetary and administrative reforms
Genuine Progress Indicators as basis of monetary reform
full cost accounting for ecological harms done by subsidies
eliminating pollution credit to given non-polluting businesses a chance

[edit]

Taxation
Green tax shift

[edit]

Examples of eco-friendly business models
Emissions trading

Sorry but it is quite clear that the GPC election platforms have a strong and possibly predominant eco-capitalist influence. I see no evidence of socialism so I do not see an eco-socialist label as applicable and I suspect the term is a neologism. As for eco-centrism, that is a neologism:

Homey


The above statement reveals a serious misunderstanding. GPI stands for Genuine Progress Indicator which seeks to incorporate Quality-of-Life measures which are not considered as important by "Capitalist" market mechanisms and current measures like the GDP.

Instead of an example to support an "Eco-Capitalist" label the presence of a concept like the GPI is proof that you can find multiple "ideologies" in the Green Platform or perhaps as I have been trying patiently to say there is a larger "ideological" framework at work (Ecological Pragmatism) that borrows from many schools of thought.

I have also explained that the "Green Tax Shift" would be Equity neutral through follow-on adjustments to tax rates and percentages. In fact by powerfully guiding the economy to environmental sustainability it disproportionately benefits the poorest who suffer most from environmental breakdown.

Likewise "Full Cost Accounting" seeks to incorporate other values that are not quantified by our current Capitalist system. It is another example of a concept which proves that the Green Platform looks beyond traditional economics - Capitalist or otherwise.

Our education, health, trade and housing policy the 2006 Platform clearly in the "Left- wing" on the ideology spectrum. Why would you ignore this?

I would ask on the principle of fairness that while this discussion is ongoing we leave the label as simply "Green".

Ericbwalton 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is GPI and FCA are identified as features of eco-capitalism in our article of that name. Homey 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


If the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is identified as a feature of eco-capitalism than this is a blaring mistake. The GPI precisely seeks to incorporate non-monetary values that the market ignores.

On a more general level I would also challenge the premise that if you dig up a few planks in an Election Platform that lean more in a direction of a certain ideology you can then label an entire Political Party with that label and ignore all the other planks, people, activities, history of the Party.

The following key statement from the eco-capitalism page does not apply to The Green Party of Canada - "Because everything is reduced ultimately to some number, a price premium can be calculated by each choice in, say, a moral purchasing or regulatory regime." We have as our Platform and program a system of regulations as well as education IN ADDITION TO market mechanisms, to address what in fact should remain in "The Commons" and not be subject to purchase and sale.

Ericbwalton 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

I'm opening a request for comment to get greater consensus on Wikipedia as to weather "eco-capitalist" is POV. I ask that it remain for now while the RFC is on-going. Ardenn 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To restate and expand on what has been said in prior discussion here: “Eco-capitalist” is very much a POV label when applied to the subject of this article. The party has not endorsed the label, and there are many within the party who oppose capitalism. There are also many within the party who embrace it. That contrast reflects the ‘ideology’ of the party which embraces diversity.

Accusations of the party being one specific ideology or another have stemmed largely from political opponents—which must certainly be seen as being a strongly POV source—and specific factions within the party (again, a very POV source).

Just because there are some elements of the party’s platforms that have matched some elements of the “eco-capitalist” approach does not mean the party as a whole entity is eco-capitalist. It also doesn't mean the party has embraced all aspects of what is called eco-capitalism. There are some elements of the party’s platform that match some elements of anarchist, authoritarian and socialist ideologies (not all at the same time, of course)—does that mean the party is aligned with those ideologies?

Of course not.

The only label for political ideology that can be fairly applied to the party in a NPOV manner is Green. Suggestion of any other ideological direction needs to be presented as the controversial matter it is, and thus belongs in the content of the article where the sources and controversies can be fully elaborated upon. Currently, that is addressed in the Policy direction section.

—GrantNeufeld 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adrianne Carr as the new green party head?

I heard this on the news this morning, November 21st, 2006, and I was wondering if anyone else had heard.

  • No, she is now one of two deputy leaders that May has appointed. The other is some guy from Quebec. Ground Zero | t 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New subheading for November 27th byelection?

Since Elizabeth May received 27.9% of the vote (the largest ever I beleive), should we make a seperate section for this vote, including a small run-down of this election? I'm from the area and there has been a lot of news coverage on this, I'm sure we could make a decent section from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.133.158 (talk • contribs).

First sentence?

It is unaccpetable that this article goes 18 paragraphs in before there is any explanation whatsoever of the actual political stance of this party. The articles for the other Canadian parties provide some discussion of party politics within the first sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.197.79 (talk • contribs).

Then why don't you add something? GreenJoe 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't know anything about the Green Party's policy. That's why I came to this article in the first place. It seems to be the most elusive thing in the world, like chasing a white unicorn. It it free-market libertarian with a enivronment caucus, or ultra leftist with a fiscal conservative faction? Who knows the answer?

For now, feel free to read up on the Green Party's website. Hopefully, your question will prompt some Green contributor on this site to do a summary of their platform here. —Cuiviénen 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The article is making great progress, but I do not feel that it yet meets GA criteria. I would suggest some revisions and then a re-submission. Here are my comments:

  • An article of this length could use more than a single image, although that is not a requirement for GA.
  • Per 1(b) and 1(c) you need to consider reducing the number of sections. The current structure of the article is choppy. In particular, two sections (Policies and Affiliations) need to either be expanded or folded into other sections. And the paragraph under history could probably use slightly more elaboration, even with the link to the separate article.
  • Per 1(c) the use of paragraphs made up of only one or two sentences makes the article choppy as well.
  • Per 2(a) and 2(b) the article lacks sourcing for a large amount of the information contained within it. You're using in-line citations, which is great for an article of this length, but if you're using them than you should have at least one per paragraph to back up certain information. Or, alternately, list general references for the un-marked information. At the very least, there should be no sections without references.
  • Per 4(a) and 4(b) there are statements in the article that do not come across as being from a neutral point of view (for example: 'The direction of the 2004 platform, while retaining similar ecological themes as before, was perceived as shifting from a centre-left to a centrist stance or even centre-right position.') The sentence above begs the question, 'was perceived by whom'? Sentences like this should be eliminated or should be referenced as being from a particular source, with equal weight given to alternate opinions.

Mocko13 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreen_Party_of_Canada_Archive_1_8f24.html"