Jump to content

Talk:New Democratic Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the phrase "First racialized president" the best choice of words?

[edit]

Dhananjai Kohli 2021–present First racialized president; United Steelworkers staff representative; formerly Ontario NDP organizer

If what is meant is the first president of non European background or the first South Asian president then I would suggest using those phrases. The word 'racialized' is not very common usage. Geo8rge (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've borrowed the useful term visible minority from the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Progressivism in ideology infobox?

[edit]

@97.97.98.76
I'm open to adding it but I don't think Progressivism is needed since Canada is already very socially liberal and every party is Progressivism (using the global definition - regarding only social issues) compared to most of Europe, and using the American definition, all Canadian parties are "progressive" (except the PPC). I'm open for other people's opinion though! ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fine in the article body/Ideology section, listed with references, but at the end of the day it’s a pretty meaningless, relatively ambiguous term. Keep progressivism out if the Infobox, as social democracy is a broader and more accurate description.— Autospark (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion a few years ago (#Should we include progressivism?) and there was no consensus then, either. I stand by what I said: "progressive" is a very meaningless phrase that just about everybody across the political spectrum will lay some claim to, so it's not something to hang a hat on. It's probably okay in the body, but it shouldn't be in the infobox. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Body is fine but infobox is rather unnecessary ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose adding "progressivism", a generic description, especially when there is already the more specific "social democracy". --Checco (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this term is not very helpful for this article, because more specific terms are already given. If a political party is fascist, the article does not need to add that the party has also been described as conservative. If a political party is liberal, the article does not need to add that the party has also been described as economically liberal. The reason for the inclusion of "progressive" in the article body needs to be more specific than just "because people said so". That's just my opinion though. Yue🌙 20:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude towards Native Canadians

[edit]

What is the party's attitude towards Native Canadians? Usually greenness and good treatment of indigenous people go together. Kaiyr (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. Consider a visit to the NDP's website. Yue🌙 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political position revisited

[edit]

The political position should, in my view, be changed to centre-left to left-wing (i.e. left-wing should not be under factions). There are plenty of sources that call the party left-wing; here are some:

Helper201 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to remove the field because it is unclear what these terms mean without context. In U.S. politics for example, some news sources refer to the Democrats as the Left, with the Republicans being the Right. Some journalists refer to the Liberals and NDP as Canada's two left-wing parties. New Democrats OTOH has referred to the Liberals and Conservatives as right-wing parties.
Note that the position field mirrors the one for ideology. That field says social democratic with a democratic socialist faction, while the position field says centre-left with a left-wing faction. We are saying social democratic=centre left, while democratic socialist=left. Why not leave arguments about where in the spectrum these ideologies lie to articles about them? TFD (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not say that “social democratic=centre left, while democratic socialist=left”. Wikipedia only follows what WP:RS say. You can discuss whether the cited RS should be weighted differently and relegated to a footnote, but we cannot remove it altogether because that contracts RS. 93.6.37.75 (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My case for "social democracy + faction: democratic socialism" and "centre-left + faction: left-wing" is simple. Social democracy is a centre-left ideology, and democratic socialism is a left-wing ideology. Just because social democracy is seen as a "left" ideology in the US (and therefore somewhat in Canada) doesn't mean the party is all of a sudden "left-wing". If you would like to add a "contextual" footnote denoting that like on Alberta New Democratic Party for this page. I would be open to that as well. Other parties like Forward Party (United States) also have one, and a more sophisticated one for Nippon Ishin no Kai.
Also with regards to the "democratic socialism" ideology in the infobox. I'm confused on why that's there when it has been removed on other pages. I see the only reasoning on why its in the infobox is because the party mentions it in its constitution. There was a discussion to this on Labour Party (UK) back in July (just after the UK general election) and I wrote:
There's a simple fix which other pages have done and I'm curious as to why it hasn't been done here as well (+ for the Swedish Social Democratic Party too).
New Zealand Labour Party:
"The party's platform programme describes its founding principle as democratic socialism, while observers describe Labour as social-democratic."
Labour Party (Malta):
"Ideologically, the party was orientated towards democratic socialism and other left-wing stances until the early 1990s, when it followed the lead of like-minded Western social-democratic parties like Britain's New Labour. The party still claims to be democratic-socialist in their party programme. Under the rule of Joseph Muscat, the party shifted to a more centrist position, adopting Third Way policies."
Israeli Labor Party:
"While originally a democratic socialist party, Labor has evolved into a programme that supports a mixed economy with strong social welfare programmes."
Labour Party (Ireland):
"...it describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" in its constitution."
Australian Labor Party:
"The Whitlam Labor government, marking a break with Labor's socialist tradition, pursued social-democratic policies rather than democratic socialist policies." and "Labor's constitution has long stated: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields" ... Labor governments have not attempted the "democratic socialisation" of any industry since the 1940s, when the Chifley government failed to nationalise the private banks, and in fact have privatised several industries such as aviation and banking."
Social Democratic Party of Germany:
"The party platform of the SPD espouses the goal of democratic socialism, which it envisions as a societal arrangement in which freedom and social justice are paramount. According to the party platform, political freedom, justice and social solidarity form the basis of social democracy."
All of these parties listed don't have democratic socialism in their infoboxes.
And a consensus was recently reached on Social Democrats (Denmark) and Swedish Social Democratic Party that democratic socialism will not be included in the infobox as that is "WP:PRIMARY, we usually don't let the party describe its own ideology" (Swedish party) and "Sources linked must be independent" (Danish party) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP disagreed with me, saying, "Wikipedia does not say that “social democratic=centre left, while democratic socialist=left”."
You said, "Social democracy is a centre-left ideology, and democratic socialism is a left-wing ideology."
My question was, if you and I are right, then isn't putting in the political position redundant? What does it tell readers that they don't already know? If they want to know where social democracy/democratic socialism lie in the poltiical spectrum, the info-box of this article isn't the place to tell them.
While I appreciate some people would like to map every ideology to a specific place in the political spectrum, the reality is that there is no agreement on this. The info-box is not the place for ambiguous, disputed information. TFD (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree 100%........ in Canada we are educated on this system... thus this is reflected in the media and general population understanding of the political spectrum in Canada. We're here to regurgitate and educate our readers on systems being used. Is this system outdated and are there better ones ... could be but this is only a debate at the academic level (See video bellow). To put it simply this is basic reading for Canadian studying politics "Canadian Politics, Seventh Edition". University of Toronto Press. 2023-06-16. Retrieved 2024-09-19..,...........Cochrane, Christopher (2010). "Left/Right Ideology and Canadian Politics". Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique. 43 (3). [Canadian Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press, Société québécoise de science politique]: 583–605. ISSN 0008-4239. JSTOR 40983510. Retrieved 2024-09-19.,..........Polacko, Matt; Graefe, Peter; Kiss, Simon (2023-10-25). "Educated voters in Canada tend to vote for left-leaning parties while richer voters go right". The Conversation. Retrieved 2024-09-19.Moxy🍁 04:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social democracy page clearly mentions "centre-left politics" on the bottom and the first sentence of the democratic socialism page says "...is a left-wing..."? Also I have never seen a party where its main ideology is social democracy not have "centre-left" as its political position (National Democratic Action (Ecuador) doesn't count for example as that's a big-tent party).
I also see no reason why the NDP shouldn't have a political position. Its easy to define and is clear. Social democracy is a centre-left ideology and that is the NDP's ideology. I would also like to bring up again that the only "source" which mentions the NDP as being democratic socialist is their constitution and that has been frequently disregarded for other centre-left parties like the one I brought up. A primary source, like the NDP's constitution, should not be used as a source for a political parties page and ideology. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case for other pages, but Wikipedia does not base pages on what other pages say. We follow what WP:RS says, and there is sufficient RS to put the NDP as left-wing. Although this has been the consensus for years it can be changed, but you have not shown how the NDP has shifted in recent years to warrant the change. You have only made unsourced arguments (Wikipedia follows WP:RS not WP:OR. So please do not alter the page until you reach that new consensus based on RS and not your opinions or OR. 2A04:CEC0:C020:A3CC:DC2A:7AB4:3DCC:2032 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS also continues to refer to the entire party as “left-wing”, not just factions. 2A04:CEC0:C020:A3CC:DC2A:7AB4:3DCC:2032 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that sources mention the party as "left-wing" but just because they do doesn't mean the party is actually left-wing. Media calls the Democratic Party of Korea as the "left" party of South Korean politics yet the party's infobox just says centre to centre-left as liberalism is a centrist/centre-left ideology. Same with the Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017) not actually being a "far-left" party, rather just left, or Nippon Ishin no Kai not being a "far-right" party, but rather centre-right.
Also when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party (UK) for 5 years, I don't ever recall the Labour wikipage ever having left-wing in its ideology box. Even though he was referred to as "left-wing" (Labour left and/or Socialist Campaign Group), Hard left (aka far-left), and more. Even though Jeremy Corbyn is way more to the left of the NDP and Jagmeet Singh will ever be.
Also good to see you finally made it into the talk page lol (even though its strange you don't have an account)
Would like to see what @Zlad! @Checco @Autospark @Davide King @FellowMellow @Scia Della Cometa @GlowstoneUnknown @User:ValenciaThunderbolt would have to say for this discussion. They've participated in several consensus reaching discussion on other pages like Labour Party (UK), Five Star Movement, ANO (political party), and several more. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the view that political position is often mislabeled by analysts of different parties, but as Wikipedia editors we should strive to include what the sources say and not what is actually real in our heads. Wikipedia should be the representation of what analysts think commonly, not what is the objective truth. That is unless something changes like with ANO and a need for a new position suddenly emerges. But to digress, this isn't even one of those mislabeling cases and I agree with labeling NDP as just left-wing personally. If the sources overwhelmingly refer to the party as just left-wing it should move to being labeled just left-wing. Zlad! (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is a fairly equal amount of sources describing the NDP as centre-left as there are left-wing and I feel that that "goal" of striving what the sources say isn't always reached upon on other pages. Especially with Wikipedia pages of parties which are described varyingly like the Democratic Party of Korea being called leftist and centre-right at the same time. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these terms are used inconsistently in the sources. They don't have absolute meanings but change meaning depending on context. In Canada, the Conservative are on the right and the Liberals and NDP on the left. Or, the liberals are in the centre. Or the Conservatives are center right and the NDP are center left. All these statements are true, depending on the context. Fascism and Communism are also referred to as right and left, but Canada's parties have more in common with one another than they do with them. TFD (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OR. We simply follow what WP:RS says. 2A04:CEC0:C020:A3CC:DC2A:7AB4:3DCC:2032 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you do when rs say different things? And per OR, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." We are supposed to discuss sources not just look for a source that supports our personal position and stick it in. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favour status quo here, the party is primarily centre-left and social democratic, but with a left-wing and democratic socialist faction that's significant enough to mention. What I oppose is moving "left-wing" and "democratic socialism" out of factions and into the primary ideologies/positions. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the status quo for years was having “left-wing” as a primary position. The first person to move it was ZlatanSweden a couple weeks ago. It’s the change in the status quo that has prompted this discussion. 2A04:CEC0:C020:A3CC:DC2A:7AB4:3DCC:2032 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to see some RS that state that these are only "factions" within the party because a plain reading of most of these RS we have now are describing the whole party. Argenator (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I did. However I recently found out that the "democratic socialism" source is primary source with it saying that just democratic socialism was mentioned in the "NDP's constitution". The Social Democrats (Denmark) had this discussion about adding democratic socialism in its infobox and was swiftly removed in both 30 April 2022 and 2 and 8 June 2024 with both edits being reverted stating that "Avoid primary sources" and "Sources linked must be independent." So that rule should be followed upon here too (as with the list of social democratic parties I listed above). There is not actual faction of the NDP which is left-wing and democratic socialist like Socialist Campaign Group for Labour Party (UK) and neither is the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh a left-winger and democratic socialist/socialist like Jeremy Corbyn was as leader of Labour UK. Singh is just a self-described social democrat while Corbyn is a self-described socialist. I'm also unsure if anyone else has noticed that almost all NDP regional parties are just "social democracy + centre-left", with the only exception being Alberta having "left-wing" but no faction, which is de facto being discussed upon here as well. (Also forgot, you should join in in the discussion as well Mr. Emma Balistreri) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basics for those new to the topic can read Politics of Canada#Political culture. ....or watch video below.Moxy🍁 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The video says that historically social democrats were referred to as left-wing, the NDP is social democratic, therefore it is left-wing. I don't see how putting this information into the info-box helps.\
    Also, the video describes Liberals as the center. No one questions that they lie between the two other main national parties on the political spectrum. However, in the U.S,, which lacks the equivalent of the NDP, the Liberal equivalent, the Democrats, is never referred to as the centrist party. TFD (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but so what? That’s WP:OR. WP:RS says otherwise, what you think is quite frankly irrelevant to Wikipedia. 2A04:CEC0:C000:1F67:C8C1:AD72:2D5F:A87B (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perfectly acceptable to discuss sources, which btw is clearly explained in WP:OR. In any case, the professor says, "Well, economically I think they fall pretty much where they have always fallen. The NDP is a social democratic party." (1:23) In other words, being socilal democratic is what puts the NDP on the left.
    If you don't think that party ideology determines where they lie on the political spectrum, where are the far right liberal and social democratic parties or far left conservative parties? TFD (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the video doesn't necessarily say the party is "left-wing", they just said "left" (with the Liberals being "centre" and conservatives as "right"). The professor also never said they're left/left-wing, he just said social democratic. Also the US Democrats are definitely referred to as centrist at times with the Blue Dog Coalition (sometimes the New Democrat Coalition too), and with politicians like Joe Manchin, Mark Warner, Henry Cuellar, Abigail Spanberger, and more. (The Democratic Party is a big-tent party after all) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
External videos
video icon "Is the Left/Right political spectrum outdated? " – Global News - 2019. (7:23 mins)

Centre-left already encompasses left-wing. I would thus have only "centre-left". --Checco (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I didn't think we should have a Position parameter for the Infobox any longer, while we do, I support including "centre-left" solely, without any other descriptors. Also, I strongly oppose any listing of "factions" (based on dubious speculation) in the Infobox – if there are factions, they should be described in the article body alone, and backed up with reliable third-party references.-- Autospark (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Autospark on both counts: "centre-left" alone in the infobox and, hopefully, removing the "position" parameter from infoboxes—it causes endless discussions, it generates big problems as sources are often inconsistent and in different contexts positions are used quite differently (much more than ideologies) and, in the end, it is quite useless. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the Australian Labor Party and several other parties, the NDP does not have formal factions and while there are people who describe themselves as democratic socialists in the NDP, there is no "democratic socialist faction" as such. (The NDP Socialist Caucus is tiny, is not recognized by the NDP, and is not a formal faction of the party. Also, most people who describe themselves as democratic socialists are not in the Socialist Caucus - and arguably the Socialist Caucus is actually Marxist rather than "democratic socialist" per se. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Factions can be organised or not. There are definitely democratic socialists within the party, but they are on the minority. The party is broadly social-democratic. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autospark you've given no reason as to why left-wing shouldn't be included when as demonstrated by my initial post, this is supported by several high-quality reliable sources. I can see a lot of statements of opinion here, rather than demonstrations of what reliable sources state, which is what we should go by. Helper201 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Democratic_Party&oldid=1248666524"