Talk:Green Party of Canada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal election results

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

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

Help

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

Centrism

Someone removed my edit where I referenced some of the far left policies from the GPOC policy book: Guaranteed minimum income, housing, and opposition to any private involvement of public health. Many claims are made that the GPOC is "fiscally conservative" but none of those positions are fiscally conservative. I agree that the party has a diverse base, but I think there is some merit in the Wiki article mentioning some of the areas where the Greens are different from what one would consider a left (tax cutting) or right (social welfare) party. 205.233.48.249 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is not meant in any mean-spirited way. I just wanted to let you know that you've got the left and right wings confused. Take care. Caben42 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Perhaps the GPC would be better described as populist rather than centrist as they are organized around a popular outlook, and don't have a clear ideological bent. Thoughts? Wyldkat 20, August, 2008.

Cleanup

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

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

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

Candidates and Ridings

The article presently indicates that the Green Party is running candidates in 306 (out of 308) ridings. Which riding besides Stephane Dion's are the Greens not running in? This should be clarified in the article, and is certainly worth noting since the party has made a point of running in every riding since the 2004 general election. --Todeswalzer|Talk 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. Former conservative Bill Casey is running as an independent and Greens are not running against him because of the stance he took against the conservatives over the Atlantic accord. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Combating vandalism

I suggest that this (and other articles related to the upcoming Canadian federal election) be restricted to edits by registered users only until after the election. The last several changes made by unregistered users have all been vandalism. Caben42 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected until Oct. 16 OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Most votes won with no seats won in history

This is somewhat of an interesting note if you think it should be added. I'm not sure if this should go in the intro after the bit about the 2008 leaders' debate or in the elections section. In the 2008 federal election, the Greens gained the most votes ever by a political party not to win any seats at 940,000. The info is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.53.22 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't these two articles be merged?

There is another article History_of_the_Green_Party_of_Canada. I think this two article be merged and this way we will have one very good article. What do you think? Ntb613 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. I think both articles are already quite long. A summary of the history on the main page is very useful for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole saga. Green Party of Canada is 34k, considered close to an upper limit according to WP:SIZE. There is also the issue of the lack of inline citations on the history page. It would be unfortunate if they came along with the merge.--Derek Andrews (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand... Ntb613 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Green Party of Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

As much as I personally liked this party, this article definitely needs to be improved to retain its GA status. Overall, it has a strong lead section, but many statements (or even sections) are unreferenced. Reference formats needs to be improved, as well as specific page rather than just pointing to the homepage of a website. There is also a link reference to Yahoo News which went dead. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no improvement (other than numerous vandalisms) on the article. I am now delisted this article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Current events - Green Party debate

Green party shut out of 2011 debate has a section in this article. Is there a way to add this current event in the news to this article "Leader's debate" section of the Leaders debate section of the Canadian Federal Election 2011 article and the Elizabeth May article as well in a neutral point of view?

For an example, a very short list of references are:

Burgmann, Tamsyn (2011-03-30), "Green's Elizabeth May will fight broadcasters' decision to ditch her from debate", The Canadian Pres, retrieved 2011-03-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

"Debate over May diverts campaign Harper pushes lower corporate taxes, Layton would raise them, Ignatieff would add to CPP", CBC News, 2011-03-30, retrieved 2011-03-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Pynn, Larry; Minsky, Amy (2011-03-30), "Greens' Elizabeth May, determined to enter debate, prepares legal action", Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News, retrieved 2011-03-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Kind regards SriMesh | talk 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Centre-Left?

Where is the citation for the Green Party being Centre left? There is some confusion as it relates to this Green party, but many of the policies are Centre-Right, or simply Centre at best. Socially, sure, but most parties are in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.224.124 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Green Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041206125627/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/series/election/2000Federal/candidates-new/1642.html to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/election/2000Federal/candidates-new/1642.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060219211719/http://www.infonet.st-johns.nf.ca:80/providers/green/policy.html to http://www.infonet.st-johns.nf.ca/providers/green/policy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917205326/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/10/elxn-may-debates.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/10/elxn-may-debates.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Political positon

1. I have changed this back to Centrism. Let's not change it again without consensus please!

2. I have asked that this page be semi-protected temporarily to give everyone time to discuss it.

Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a source for you....the source tlaks about how the party has moved to be more centre based...(this is what you need to do to change things.. see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Documenting sources for more info). As for center-left and left....world sources will say this ....as its the historical position of the party till the late 2000s-- Moxy (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And that's fine for the History of the Green Party of Canada sub-article which needs more sources anyway. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They've come out with a manifesto (http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/default/files/platform_english_web.pdf), please read through it and tell me how it wouldn't classify them as a solely centre-left, or even, to be honest, democratic socialist party.Benlikespolitics (talk)

As nice as that is, you and I don't make a consensus alone. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you look at their policy positions this year (they're on there website), and last elections', I think it's pretty clear they're center left, if not completely left. There right wing oriented aspect was only explored in the early or mid 2000s. Benlikespolitics (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of what the Green Party says, their platform is that of a centre-left, social democratic party. Aa508186 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that the Green Party is centre-left? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not found any such references, but their platform is certainly more left-wing than that of the NDP, which is labelled "centre-left" on Wikipedia. Aa508186 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I found this recent National Post editorial [1] that describe the Greens as left of the Liberals and NDP. If this talk page agrees, I think changing the position to "Centre to Centre-Left" could work. Thoughts? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the Green Party is centrist. They would make large changes if they got elected. Aa508186 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree Centre is just not right here ....not sure why all the sources keep getting deleted....but not a big deal at 4 percent they will never make a difference. But the last source said " Identifying themselves as a center/left government party, their views on most social, financial, and credit issues (as well as issues of nationalism, civil rights, taxation, and many others) lean farther left than anything else. Focusing mostly on issues that have to do with the environment, nonviolence, and social justice, they have started to gain a head of steam in the last decade or so" ...not sure that deleting source after source help our readers. We should be using third party sources....not self-published wish lists. -- Moxy (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither source said what you thought it did. I checked. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Both sources deleted today mention the left position (one infact mentions its the majority view of canadian voters) ....is there a problem with the sources? I am a bit concerned here that your POV may be bias...as stated by your userpage. Thus far we have all but one person that think this should be changed. Will make a RfC later today see what outsiders think of the 5 sources presented thus far. We should get this right making sure we dont push a parties POV over the facts of history. --

J.J.'s Guide to Canadian Politics is not a reliable source. it's just some guy. The question then is whether we should take a National Post editorial over the Canadian Encyclopedia and a book written by Jon H. Pammett, professor of political science at Carleton University, and Christopher Dornan, Associate Dean of the Faculty of Public Affairs at Carleton. The sources for "centre" are clearly more objective than a National Post editorial. Ground Zero | t 13:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What source here says centre - non in the article by third parties? All I have seen is sources that say left of centre....or that the party does not side left or right at all...this is not the same as centre at. Right now the sources say left of centre in the article but thats not what we are saying. But all that said ..I follow politics here and would say the Green-party has been placed on the far left by pundits for many many years now, but in the view of political scientist they are right-centrist's on most things except on in environmental issues.

I looked at the three sources listed and am quoting from each of them. The first source, The Canadian Encyclopedia says, "Since 2006, leader Elizabeth May has guided the party in a more centrist direction." The article was written in 2007 by Alan Whitehorn who has extensive academic background in political science. The second source from The Canadian Federal Election of 2006 has a detailed writeup of the Green Party. It says that the 2006 platform had a "social environmental focus" and the Sierra Club of Canada called the platform "well conceived and grounded in much of the existing policy debate." I couldn't find any particular mention of a left/right/centre conclusion in the book. The third source is from an editorial by the National Post which has a well-known hard right bias. It says, "As the Liberals and New Democrats battle it out for the left side of the political spectrum, the Greens have staked out ground well to the left of both...the Greens’ failure to establish a clear identity beyond the leadership, and to the odd mish-mash of policies it has put on offer." So the Canadian Encyclopedia offers the only clear unbiased opinion in that the party has moved towards the centre under May's leadership. The book provides no clear insight and the National Post is clearly biased. Although the Canadian Encyclopedia article is 8 years out of date I think it is still the most reliable. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Green Party is very difficult to place. In the mid-2000s they were advocating to shift the tax base to being more broad-based and cutting CPP, but in the last election they were advocating to raise the corporate tax more than the NDP, abolish tuition, and expand the CPP. I'm not sure how useful the centrist label is here because placing it to the right of the Liberal Party (Wikipedia cites the Liberals as centre to centre-left) may be telling readers to expect centrism from the Greens when their last platform was more likely on the left. Scizor_99 (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130824111712/http://www.greenparty.ca/files/attachments/green-book-2011-en.pdf to http://greenparty.ca/files/attachments/green-book-2011-en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016

Please add this information. Backup by news sources:

The Green Party has been linked to Antisemitism as much of their parties membership supports the boycott, divestment, and sanctions against the country of Israel. Recently the party has been linked to movements to ban Israeli investment and exchange students from Israel.

198.251.56.217 (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done Firstly, you have not indicated specifically where you would like this edit within the article. Secondly, your addition appears to be somewhat biased as neither of your sources imply that the Green Party "has been linked to Antisemitism." Topher385 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Provincial governments and Legislature seats

The article states that the GPC is a federal political party, so it will never form a provincial government or have a seat in a provincial legislature. Why have these been added to the infobox? I propose to remove them. Comments? Ground Zero | t 01:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I know this is a delayed response, and the information in question has already been removed from the infobox — but I just wanted to note that since each provincial Green Party has its own separate article in which its seat total in a provincial legislature can be noted, there is indeed no need for this article's infobox to concern itself with anything further than the standings in the federal House of Commons. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Green Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629140717/http://greenparty.ca/en/releases/09.02.2007B to http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/09.02.2007B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629140733/http://greenparty.ca/en/releases/08.29.2007 to http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/08.29.2007
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.greenparty.ca/mediarelease196.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706233659/http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/testcase/russow.pdf to http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/testcase/russow.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418134707/http://www.ndp.ca/page/5139 to http://www.ndp.ca/page/5139
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921074215/http://www.rantandroar.ca/terranovaparty.htm to http://www.rantandroar.ca/terranovaparty.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Alberta%20Greens%20registered%20election/1793448/story.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Green Liberalism as Ideology?

I was thinking of changing the ideology list to include Green Liberalism, but it mentioned not to change much without consensus from the Talk Page. So is anyone else open? I think Green Liberalism describes their policies well. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you think. You need sources, this is an encyclopedia. Charles lindberg (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Left-center-right?

So I see this has come up again....so what is best. The main problem we have is as a party with zero affect on the Canadian system academic study of them has been very minimal. What we do have is a lot of media.... and here's where the problem lies some say left some say Center some say center-left.... While others say they have many policies that are considered right wing. So perhaps a consolidation of very modern sources in the past 2 years is what we should looking for. We'll have to evaluate the sources.... we can assume CTV will say they're moving to the center.... CBC will say the left...and and Toronto papers would say Central left with right-wing ideologies. So perhaps we should look for some outside views--Moxy 🍁 21:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: Honestly, I really didn't expect anyone to particularly care when I copy-edited Marmot11's addition, but I guess I underestimated Canadian politics yet again. I'll just put a bunch of references here to elaborate on my position that they are clearly Center to Left (not left-of-center, but the range from Center to left). One political scientist, the Star. WaPo says populist. And some more worth reviewing. I don't know. Yeah they are all over the map a bit, but it's somewhat clear to me that WP:RS have gone towards calling them from the range to center and left. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@Moxy The more I read up on green party policies since Elisabeth May took over leadership the less I feel like I understand what the direction or "position" the party is. The more I read from your sources and the ones I've looked at the more it seems like they do not know either. I think its a good idea to leave the page as is. I'm very new to wiki editing so sorry if I miss some of how it works. Marmot11 10:25, 23 may 2019

Replied on user talk. Pinging Moxy –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's true that a lot of media outlets oversimplify the Greens as being a party of the "left" — but the reality is, apart from the environmental issue itself, the Greens don't even identify themselves as being particularly left. Elizabeth May herself wrote this piece, in which she explicitly rejects the traditional left-right spectrum as relevant to contemporary politics at all, and many other Greens have expressed in the past that they also do not feel aligned to the traditional left-right spectrum. It's still an oversimplification in the other direction, but the joke that Greens are "Tories who compost" has some truth to it as well — if anything, they're more like old-school Red Tories of the Robert Stanfield-Joe Clark-Flora Macdonald lineage (who were also considered "left" by some sources, but weren't exactly that in reality) than anyone else. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Bloat under "Election results"

I think we need to give a look to the Election results section. Everything under that section other than the bar graph and results table should be culled, as they have little-to-no relevance. "Exclusion from debates", "May-Dion electoral co-operation in 2008" and "Role in 2008-2009 parliamentary dispute" should be covered under the earlier "History" section, but also need to be trimmed and reworked to be non-POV ("exclusion from debates" is particularly bad for this, it's clear an editor had an axe to grind). And with the Green Party now having had five MPs and another two non-caucus MPs I think we're beginning to reach the point where it's both unnecessary and excessively long to note all movement on this front; a simple list of the current MPs (as on seen on the pages for the PEI Greens and BC Greens) would suffice, along with the existent List of Green politicians who have held office in Canada page for full details. Thoughts? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead section content

The lead section's content is only about election results. The article talks about the party's principles too. We should add that. Sociable Song (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved the party's 2019 successes out of the lead but it's still a bit awkward. How about something like this:

The Green Party of Canada (French: Parti vert du Canada) is a federal political party in Canada that was founded in 1983. Since its founding, the party has supported policies strengthening participatory democracy, nonviolence, social justice, sustainability, respect for diversity and ecological wisdom. Since 2019, the party has been lead on an interim basis by Jo-Ann Roberts; prior to that, the party was lead by Elizabeth May from 2006 to 2019.

The Green Party has gradually increased its support over the decades and is currently the fifth-largest party in the House of Commons. The party elected its first Member of Parliament (MP), then-leader Elizabeth May, in 2011 election. In the 2019 election, the party expanded its caucus to three.

— Kawnhr (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Political position

I just revered a change to this made in the template. PLEASE discuss changes to the political position here before editing the article. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that the political position was only added earlier this month, and initially unsourced at that, I've taken the liberty of removing it entirely. If this is going to be added, I think we need a better source than a vote compass. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Eco socialism https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/green-party-moves-towards-declaring-itself-eco-socialist ~// This is a contribution by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That's the Green Party of the United States. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Canadian Green Party's leadership election, has three self-described Ecosocialist candidate on the ballot. So it probably seeing they would adopting it as a co-ideology, in the near future. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We need to put eco-socialism (factions) in the party ideology, because there are several socialists running for party leader. Di123 (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Centrism needs to stay (factions) in the party ideology, because the party's leader as well as Elizabeth May have said that the party has a centrist agenda and it's neither described left or right. An article is provided for this. Right Honourable Gentleman (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the party officially considers itself Big Tent (rejecting the left/right spectrum). That being said, the canadian media considers the party to be center-left to left-wing policy-wise (CBC considers it to the left of the NDP). The party's centrist faction would tend to be a little social-democratic (eco-capitalist) and its left-wing faction would be eco-socialist, to the left of the NDP. Why not put Big Tent (official position) and center-left to left-wing (unofficial position) on the party's page, I think it's long overdue. Di123 (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)