Talk:New Democratic Party

Republicanism

We should add Republicanism as an ideology of the party https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/ Hcoder3104 (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Just a reminder to everybody that it is not necessary or useful for the federal party's infobox to maintain a complete tally of the party's seats in provincial legislatures. Each provincial party already has its own separate article as it is, so there's no valid or useful reason for the federal party's article to get special treatment denied the Liberals or the Conservatives or the Greens. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "special treatment." The other parties' federal and provincial wings aren't linked formally in the way the NDP is. The NDP is the umbrella party, and it has provincial and federal wings. The page should reflect that. BlewsClews (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. We've got provincial & territorial NDP articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And this is the only party where the provincial and federal parties are linked, which means that the provincial seats are relevant to the umbrella organization which is the federal party. BlewsClews (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that the federal and provincial parties are formally linked (unlike the fed-provincial status between the Liberal and Conservatives, although one could make a case of some of them being compiled too--especially the Greens) it makes total sense to list out the provincial tallies, as is done with both the Democratic and Republican pages. (BlewsClews (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC))

We've got NDP provincial/territorial parties, which can handle the info. Please stop re-adding to the article those extra seats. You're engaging in a long drawn out edit war. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Since each provincial party has its own separate article to list its provincial legislature seats in, the NDP does not require special treatment different from how the Liberals or Conservatives handle the same information. How the United States or the United Kingdom handle their political parties is irrelevant, because the US and the UK don't work the same way as Canada does — their parties each operate as one nationwide entity that is responsible for party organization at all levels of government. The Utah Democratic Party is not a separate entity from the national US Democratic Party, but merely the national party's Utah chapter, and the Manchester Labour Party is not a separate entity from the national UK Labour Party — in those countries the whole party, regardless of what level of government is involved, is a single entity. Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May and Vince Cable, for example, are directly involved in municipal elections in the UK, because the parties running local council candidates in the cities and counties are not separate from the parties running MP candidates at Westminster — it's the same organization at both levels. It simply doesn't work the same way in Canada, so what other countries do is irrelevant — we have to decide how to do it based exclusively on what's true in the Canadian system, and not on how any other country does things, and what's true in the Canadian system is that it's unnecessary to reify provincial representation into national party data, because the provincial-level parties already have their own separate articles to list provincial legislature seats in. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought that most of these info-boxes were meaningless. Certainly the number of seats a party holds in Parliament is important, but adding seats in Yukon, where a member represents 2,000 people, with Ontario, where they represent 100,000 people, gives a false representation of support. Furthermore, in Quebec, the second largest province by population, none of the provincial parties are even unofficially affiliated with the major federal parties. TFD (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an info box, to display raw data. How that data is interpreted (i.e. comparisons of provincial seat size, lack of prov-fed linked parties in other provinces) isn't an argument for not presenting the data.BlewsClews (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We've got provincial/territorial NDP articles. Note: We don't put the federal seats totals in each of those articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. But the provincial parties are a lower level of government, so it makes sense not to include them in the provincial pages. BlewsClews (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus here, for what you want. Please drop it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure it is, because we cannot expect readers to be able to correctly interpret the data without this information. Incidentally, the UK info-box also includes local government members for each party. Why not include that too? Incidentally, where is this information taken from? If there are no actual sources that give the totals, then the information is too insignificant for inclusion. Also, territories do not compare to provinces, since they are creations of the federal government, rather than sovereign units. TFD (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The Canadian federal and provincial political parties are never directly involved in municipal politics in any Canadian city — the few Canadian cities that actually have political party structures in municipal politics (Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City, etc.) have completely unique municipal-specific parties that don't correspond in any way to the federal or provincial ones. So where on earth do you propose to get any municipal data from to add it to federal political party infoboxes? Again, the UK runs on a system where the national Conservative, Labour, LibDem, UKIP, etc., parties are directly involved in municipal politics, so what they do is based on how their system works — but it's irrelevant to what we should do, because it's irrelevant to how our system works. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You could say the same thing for the Nunavat council, yet they are included in the number of provincial and territorial members. BTW both Liberals and New Democrats have successfully run candidates for Toronto council. I don't know if other parties in other municipalities have done the same. TFD (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We really should not include provincial governments in the Infobox for the federal NDP. Canada has separate federal and provincial, and while the provincial NDPs (excluding Quebec) are linked to the federal NDP, the federal NDP does not contest provincial elections. As with the comparison with the main two parties US politics, that's an invalid comparison, apples and oranges, so to speak.--Autospark (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism is part of the party's constituion

Some people keep removing Democratic Socialism from the party's ideology when it's clearly stated in the party's constituion: https://xfer.ndp.ca/2016/documents/NDP-CONSTITUTION-EN.pdf PhidlerCrab (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It is better to use a secondary sources, such as Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (Greenwood, 2000), which clearly identifies the New Democrats as a socialist party (pp. 143-147). For whatever reason, some editors want to distinguish between social democratic and democratic socialism, although the terms are usually interchangeable. TFD (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the physical book? The url you provided only goes to page 27. Furthermore, I re-checked Wikipedia's policy on primary and secondary sources. As it turns out, you can use primary sources only to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Primary sources CANNOT be used to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesized material" which are done by secondary sources. Emphasis is my own, and the policy goes on and on in greater details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquitoba (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Democratic socialism and social democracy are not interchangeable. Democratic socialism supports a liberal democracy within a socially owned economy (in which the means of production are controlled by the workers, socialism), while social democracy is a capitalist market economy with state interventions (mostly strong social programs). --DrOwl19 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2021 (EST)

I have no problem with the term...but the non working primary source is not good. Would be like using a NazI source for them claming there left wing. Will look for a source.....the problem is Democratic Socialism is not a term used normal in Canadian politics...we use the current term.--Moxy (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There really is no point calling it a left-wing party if we are going to suppress the democratic socialists within the party. Left-Libertarian (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Various other sources refer to the NDP as democratic socialist, such as Government of Edward Schreyer: Democratic Socialism in Manitoba Socialist, social democratic and democratic socialist are interchangeable terms, but in Canada the most usual term is socialist. In the Schreyer book for example, all three terms are used without distinction. TFD (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Political position

Where in the source does it say the NDP are Centre-left? I don't think it's fair to say "Left to Centre Left" when there are some sources classify Canadian parties on the Canadian political spectrum and other sources classifying them on a "world" political spectrum. IsabelleFlake (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't. I suggest we remove the field from the info-box. It comes below the box that says the party's ideology is social democracy/democratic socialism. Why not let readers decide for themselves where that fits into the political spectrum, rather than Wikipedia editors? TFD (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

For sure. If anyone else has anything to add, that's fine. We'll come to consensus to change it. I've never heard anyone refer to the NDP as "centre-left". IsabelleFlake (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, every other major parties uses the political spectrum in their info box. IMO, it makes no sense to create inconsistency with other equivalent pages. Aquitoba (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

OK guys your edit waring so much that the sources don't even match the content. We need some academic source for center-left. I will look myself but I believe I will have trouble finding non-news articles. In the mean time Can we get all back here and looking for sources.....we don't care about personal opinions. ...just what academic sources say.--Moxy (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the sources do match the content. I clearly added a citation which explicitly labelled the party centre-left. There was no clear consensus not to include centre-left, nor to remove it, nor to remove the source I added. While academic sources are preferable, news articles are more than acceptable sources for citations providing the news sources are reliable. The BBC is a very well known and regarded as a reliable source. Helper201 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been here for two weeks. Consensus was made as no one else felt the need to give any counter-points. Start a new discussion and read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. IsabelleFlake (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please point me to where there is a clear consensus for not including centre-left. Also what refute do you have for removing a perfectly acceptable reliable source which explicitly supports the claim of the party being centre-left? Helper201 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The original source didn't even include the word "centre-left" which was seconded by this user's comment. IsabelleFlake (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

To quote the BBC source directly - "The New Democratic Party is currently the third place party in Canada's Parliament, with 44 of 338 seats. The left-of-centre party has never held power". Left-of-centre means the exact same as centre-left. You also have yet to point to this clear consensus for not including centre-left. Helper201 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also in complete agreement with the comment by User:Aquitoba. Helper201 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, here are two more sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/world/americas/23canada.html
• https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/canadas-election-explained/6854408

Helper201 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What we are looking for is sources from the academic community....not headline news papers that have no context. Will take the time tomorrow to research this.....I don't really have a problem with the label but would be best to have a source that explains rather than mentioned in passing.--Moxy (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's going to be difficult because "center left" is not a defined term within academic writing. I have not been able to find any books or articles written about it. Outside Wikipedia, no one spends a lot of time determining where exactly mainstream parties fit on the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Lots of academic sources there's a whole academic principal devoted to the subject. I am concerned we have a group of editors not all that familiar with the topic. We have a whole bunch of opinions and the only sources used thus far for an edit war are news articles. There's hundreds of books out there analyzing this and not one person has mentioned a credible author or book. As I said before I don't have a problem with center left......we just need a real source.....I will review what I can get my eyes on ..--Moxy (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am well familiar with editing political pages on Wikipedia. What's being missed here is the fact that news articles are perfectly acceptable sources for citations. Yes, academic sources are preferable, however that's the issue here, preferable, not required. Wikipedia does not discriminate against news articles, providing they are from reliable sources. The sources are perfectly reliable and no argument has been presented as to why the party is not centre-left. Helper201 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the problem here... we are not going to use news sources over academic sources.... if hundreds of academic Publications say left vs some click Bait news headlines we have to go with the MORE reliable source ..... especially when the lesser source has zero analysis and does not help our readers understand the reason behind its stamtment. There's a whole academic discipline devoted to this.....zero need for news article on a topic covered widely by academic circles.--Moxy (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"We are not going to", that's you speaking for everyone, when you are speaking of your own opinion, please do not speak for others. Secondly, sources that state one fact do not discredit the reliability of another source saying something different, unless the source directly states the party is not X (X in this case being centre-left). Plenty of political parties have more than one position cited on their page, and this is a fairly long standing consistency on Wikipedia. So academic sources stating left-wing do not mean the party is not to some extent also centre-left. Thirdly, these sources are clearly not click bait. Helper201 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

of interest.... please don't use mass media for academic topics..... look for things things with an analysis.... look for things that will educate our readers.--Moxy (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That is something you should take up regarding altering Wikipedia's rules/policies. It is not the place to demand these changes on one random page. As it currently stands the way centre-left is cited is perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's rules and there is no current standing reason to remove it or the sources provided according to those rules. Helper201 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Its all there in the rules just need to read about it ...this topic is not pop culture and has a whole academic discipline associated with it Political science ..like other academic related articles best to avoid the lowest acceptable source ..let me quote for you...WP:NEWSORG "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release" . What your asking is to use a bad source in the lead about a term that is not covered in the article and using news sources that contradict academic ones causing a clear WP:WEIGHT problem...giving a news sources the same level of weight as academic ones. -- Moxy (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I finally found a book about the center left, Why the Left Loses: The Decline of the Centre-Left in Comparative Perspective (2017). In the first section, "Why the Left Loses," the editors define center-left as social democratic and labour parties. In the Canadian section, p. 39, it refers to What’s Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times (2011), p.3, which says the center left includes "social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." This section identifies two major Canadian center left parties, the Liberals and the NDP.[1] TFD (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That is also the only source that I could find. It seems like all the academic sources point to the party being left-wing rather than centre-left. I haven't heard of a socialist party being referred to as "centre-left". IsabelleFlake (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that other writers refer to liberals as centrist and social democrats/democratic socialists as part of the Left. I still do not see the point of putting this into the info-box. It already says the NDP is social democratic. It is center-left, if we define center-left as social democratic, or left-wing if we define the Left as including social democrats. What information does that provide readers? But saying center left to left then becomes a problem, because we are using different definitions.

TFD (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok let's use it and drop the news stuff. We need to write a bit about the political position in the article too. --Moxy (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is common consistency to include a political position/positions regardless of political ideology. Social democratic parties on Wikipedia still include a political position. Also one academic's view on the relationship between political ideologies and political positions does not act as a universal rule. Helper201 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you appear to be stonewalling and simply agreeing to implement what fits your own agenda or views. You do not speak for everyone. Helper201 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am agreeing to add a real source ....if you have one join in...but searching Google for news articles is not what anyone is looking for. --Moxy (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I just presented two academic sources, in fact the only sources I could find that explain the term center left. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that Left-Libertarian and Helper201 were changing party ideology/position without gaining consensus which goes against the posted notice. IsabelleFlake (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, news articles from reliable sources are real sources, no matter what your opinion is, this is Wikipeida's rules, not your own. If you have a problem with that take it up with Wikipedia. IsabelleFlake, centre-left had long stood on this page and there should have been consensus to remove it and especially to remove it once it was cited, which there was no consensus to do. You can't just remove cited information and then demand a consensus to restore it. Helper201 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ok so what weight should we give the few sources we have? A section on the premise on movment of position that got them doing well a few elections ago perhaps? Dispite the majority of academic sources saying left.....we do have a few saying a centre-left shift is what got them to official opposition status. Lets see if we can drop old news papers with recognized sources on the topic that analyzes the situation on centre-left.--Moxy (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue of any shifting, its just different interpretations of where the party is on the political spectrum. There is nothing wrong with having more than one political position listed. The BBC article for instance was only written just over a year ago upon the election of the party's current leader. We don't weight to the majority of sources. Take the page Podemos for example. The overwhelming amount of sources label the party as left-wing, yet one source labels it far-left. This has been debated by experienced editors and the far-left label has been kept. We don't weight by majority. To preference sources involves an editors opinion and possible bias. As long as the source is reliable and does not directly contradict another, they can both stay. Helper201 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

here's an article that explains a bit ( not an analytical news article but a moment in time). I am try to get a copy of Éric Bélanger latest publication as he talk about the courting by the NDP of the Centrist vote in the 2000s.--Moxy (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:SYNTH. A source specifically stating the party is not/no longer centre-left is needed. As per synth, conclusions should not be drawn from sources that don't state something explicitly. Helper201 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned your not getting any point.....the news article is for you to read because your unsourced opinion above is not based in anything factual. --Moxy (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We've clearly reached an impasse, which is why I requested for further comments by other editors. I am not giving my opinion, I'm telling you what is cited by the news articles, which it is your opinion that these are not acceptable sources, when by Wikipedia's rules they are perfectly acceptable sources for citations. While I do not agree with conflating the ideology and political position sections it is a fairly routine commonality that social democratic parties (of which the NDP is one) are centre-left. Besides your view of news articles being unacceptable (of which I have persistently outlined they are perfectly acceptable to use for citations on Wikipedia) I don't see why you are so against removing this label. Helper201 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We are at an impass.... I am advocating for academic sources with an explanatory content in the article about as to why they are considered Centre left to explain the infobox lable....and your advocating for non-academic sources that mention this in passing and no new content to explain to our readers why we use the label. In my view your going out of your way to stifle progress.....so yes get others involved.... as we need to find sources that explain this and pass this knowledge on to our readers. You arguing with a guy who agrees that we should have Central left despite the overwhelming majority of sources saying just left. You have been unable to address the concerns raised in our policies that have been linked like undue weight and NEWSORG. --Moxy (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

See Why the Left Loses: The Decline of the Centre-Left in Comparative Perspective (2017). In the first section, "Why the Left Loses," the editors define center-left as social democratic and labor parties. In the Canadian section, p. 39, it refers to What’s Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times (2011), p.3, which says the center left includes "social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." This section identifies two major Canadian center left parties, the Liberals and the NDP.[2] TFD (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice never thought that Ross, George published the book again after 1998 .....good call. Was going out of my way not to read the book because I thought it was lasted published in 1998.--Moxy (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I like the wording here....Political Systems Of The World. Allied Publishers. p. 114. ISBN 978-81-7023-307-7......--Moxy (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion occurs over numerous different articles, I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27#Political position. TFD (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Blurry logo

As one might have guessed, this is my first time uploading an image. Although it appears sharp when you click on it - t becomes blurry in the page, why is that? Aquitoba (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, I figured it out, I think. The png file should have been svg - and I cannot find a way to convert png to svg. Thus, I’ll revert my own changes and let someone else with more experience do it. Aquitoba (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

it all good, I figured it out Aquitoba (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Verifying Edits

An IP is doing an unusual large number of editing, can someone (with wiki experience) verify whether these edits are appropriate for this article? Aquitoba (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we include progressivism?

Should progressivism be included among the party's ideologies in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wondering what other editors think regarding including progressivism among the party's ideologies in the infobox. Here are two supporting citations for this claim - . Both The Independent and The Guardian are reliable sources. Progressivism is also listed as a political ideology on the list of political ideologies page.

Autospark removed this from the infobox with the following edit summary - 'rv, why include "progressivism"? It is a redundant term that relies on two weak journalistic references, and we already have social democratic and centre-left very well referenced'.

My argument would be what would be the disadvantage with including it? If it makes the article more informative for readers then I only see a benefit by including it. I don't see what it could take away to include it. I don't see how either source is weak either. Both are from well known reliable sources. There are also other left parties on Wikipedia that include progressivism among the ideologies given within their infobox, such as the Green Party of England and Wales. Helper201 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

You need to provide a shorter statement here, you cannot amend the listing entry and expect it to stick - you were warned not to edit that page. It'll be overwritten within 27 minutes of me posting this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Progressivism is not an ideology, but a term used to group together people of various ideologies who agreed on certain issues. It's so wide that people such as the former UK PM David Cameron and the former U.S. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton both call themselves progressive. TFD (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should include it. No reason not to, IMO; if it's specifically attested to in reliable sources than it oughta be in. Loki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No. In modern parlance, "progressive" isn't an ideology in its own right, merely a nebulous label that suggests "left-leaning" or simply "modern". It is often applied to (or used by) the NDP, sure, but the Liberals are also fond of the word (particularly under Trudeau), and even conservatives will use it— consider all the provincial politicians who will specifically call themselves "progressive conservative" to emphasize their centrist views. Nor does the NDP have much in common with the historical progressivism movement, aside from the broad strokes. "Progressive" is effectively a buzzword, and doesn't add anything to the infobox not already covered by "social democracy". — Kawnhr (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism should be moved to factions.

The NDP constitution of 2018 omits Democratic Socialism from it's constitution, unlike in 2016. https://xfer.ndp.ca/2018/Documents/2018-CONSTITUTION.pdf

Democratic Socialists still exist within the party, largely through the NDP Socialist Caucus. However, policies and the general direction of the party have continued to lean more towards social democracy. The NDP's move from Socialist International to the Progressive Alliance. I think this is a fair suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheesyHTP (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As an active member of the party, and member of my EDA Executive I would have to disagree. First of all Democratic Socialism has not been removed from the NDP Constitution, and second of all there is still a large chunk of Democratic Socialists within the party, (Niki Ashton, Alexander Boulrice, Matthew Green, Leah Gazun, ect), not to mention the YNDP which is pretty left wing, and several EDA's like mine which are more left then the Party. Moving from Socialist International to the Progressive Alliance proves nothing, both are big tent progressive organizations with one being way more democratic then the other. Also the Socialist Caucus is insignificant. Austin Jaax (talk) contribs) 4:04, 12 August 2020 (EST)

The 2018 constitution places the party within "the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions." It's original research to say that this implies there are two separate factions, rather than that the terms are used interchangeably. The Labour Party's Clause IV for example says that it is a "democratic socialist party." In any case, self-identification is not a reliable source. The party is usually classified within a socialist party family, which includes the NDP and Labour, while more left-wing parties such as Quebec Solidaire are referred to as left parties.

Also, many parties left the Socialist International because it was too right-wing. Juan Guaido's party for example is a member and the Democratic Socialists of America left over Israel. They also had a number of authoritarian parties as members.

TFD (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with above that self-descriptions are not valid evidence for a political party's ideological standpoints. Also agree that the NDP is in the mould of a social-democratic party.--Autospark (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the NDP is broadly a social-democratic party. There is no need to have further ideologies in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings

I misclicked on my keyboard so I'll explain myself here. "The mild decline" and "even more decline" are ambiguous and editorial phrases, and not appropriate subheading titles. It is obvious that support for the NDP has declined in the past two elections, but such phrases aren't helpful. How would one phrase the next section if the NDP's seats decreased further in the next election? It's redundant and unnecessary, and of course none of this language is used on the other parties' articles. Any individual can cast their judgement on the NDP, but Wikipedia should not. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Basically in 2019 the party went back to its historical levels of support after losing the gains of the "Orange Crush" of 2011 over two elections. TFD (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NDP-NPD-Canada.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Significant changes to History section

Upon discovering the existence of a separate History of the New Democratic Party article I moved a great deal of text and images from the History section to that article. What remains is a pared down summary of the NDP's leadership and electoral fortunes, with extra details only being included for context when neccesary. More in-depth coverage should be kept to the separate History of the New Democratic Party article. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks much better now! — Kawnhr (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jagmeet Singh 2021 Election Debate.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Add Progressivism in ideology infobox?

@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)

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)

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)

I agree. Body is fine but infobox is rather unnecessary ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)