Talk:New Democratic Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Social and Economic Justice?

This is a rather ambiguous term which I have removed from the introduction of the article. It would be hard to find a party in Canada that would NOT say that it supports these ideals, though they would have very different conceptions of what they mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.31 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007

Vandalism

It seems that some readers believe that NDP is an extremist leftist party led by Joseph Stalin. Perhaps this page should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.96.86 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Lillian Dyck

I added back in the 1 member of the Senate that the NDP has. NDP recognition is irrelevant to the facts, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. GreenJoe 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Party recognition is not irrelevant to the matter; there is no member of the Senate who is entitled to sit in NDP caucus meetings or speak on behalf of the party on a political issue. Party recognition is the crux of the matter, not an irrelevant aside. It's correct to note the matter of Lillian Dyck in the article, but it's precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we can't misrepresent her as being a member of the NDP caucus. Quite apart from the question of her parliamentary status, she doesn't even hold a membership in the party as an individual. Bearcat 22:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed opportunity there sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Party logo in the 1970s and early 1980s"

Is it me, or is the logo meant to be an abstract depiction of the Canadian Parliament? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.201.68 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Affiliated membership/union votes

I suggest that the bulk of my 00:36(CST) April 2nd Post be allowed to stand. Perhaps with some minor edits, eg. some alternate wording for 'so dominated by', or placing the Winnipeg Declaration before the addition, replacing the idea of interchangability with the idea that it is often reported 25% of the vote is simply allotted to labour/union affiliates or (labour) unions. At 25% the article stands much better than at 45%, but it seems to me the intent of the constitution was to extend affiliated membership well beyond unions, and if this were brought into fruition it would cut down on the unions 25%, if this is not reasonable I would at least like to see a discussion of why it isn't Thank you Jethro 82 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp90s.PNG

Image:Ndp90s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp80s.PNG

Image:Ndp80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp70s.PNG

Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Municipal

I don’t think that we should include the municipal politicians and Miller in particular. None of the federal parties represented in Ottawa have municipal wings and all have members elected as mayors. It is simply true of every party everywhere that its members are active in levels where the party does not itself participate. It reads as though the note is there to say that New Democrats are successful. --JGGardiner 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Name should be changed to "New Democratic Party of Canada" to distinguish the federal party from the provincial parties and of "NDPs" of other countries

I know that the federal NDP has direct links with its provincial counterparts, unlike the federal Liberals or federal Conservatives, but since this is talking about the federal party, I think this page should be renamed "New Democratic Party of Canada". There are political parties named the "New Democratic Party" in Albania, Saint Vincent, and Sri Lanka. Renaming this article would help alleviate some of the accusations that the English wikipedia is North-American biased. When seaching "New Democratic Party", a disambiguation page should pop up to reduce potential frustration from non-Canadian wikipedia viewers. User:R-41

WP:NAME says to use the most common name. I'd argue it should be called "NDP" instead of the suggested new title. But if that can't be done,t he current name is better. GreenJoe 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not the case when searching "Democratic Party", if it was, the U.S. Democratic Party should show up. Oh well, if that's the case for wikipedia as a whole then I'll accept it. Though I think that English Wikipedia has got to change some policies such as that one to reduce the accusations of North American bias. user:R-41

The party is not called the New Democratic Party of Canada! I cringe whenever someone calls it that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If this page we're to be moved, it would be to New Democratic Party (Canada) as per convention, and not New Democratic Party of Canada because that's not the proper name. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Bearcat 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While there may not be any other "New Democratic Parties" it would be useful to have (Canada) added so that people using categories to navigate will know that this is a Canadian party. Reginald Perrin 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Democratic Party (NPD; Nouveau parti démocratique in French) is a political party in Canada. I think that clears it up for anyone reading the article. Honestly, titles do not need to be dab'd just for the sake of it. The title tells you who the subject is. The article can tell you everything else. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Skeezix1000 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There are over 2500 pages that link to "New Democratic Party". Of those who want the name changed, who is willing to volunteer to go in and fix all of the links that will now be to a dismbiguation page? It wouldn't actually be 2500 fixes since a few hundred might be from talk pages that don't really have to be corrected, but the remainder would have to be. I think before a change is made, you should sort out amongst yourselves who is going to undertake this time-consuming and tedious task. If the idea is to make "New Democratic Party" a redirect to "New Democratic Party (Canada)", then it would just be a waste of time -- there would be no point renaming the article -- Royalguard11's comment explains well why there is no need to put excess information in the article name. Ground Zero | t 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I see no need to change, as it really seems to be fixing a problem that doesn't exist. (Boy, that was a wordy way to say "if it ain' broke, don't fix it.) Agent 86 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp70s.PNG

Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Election 2008

Canada is voting on October 14, 2008. Please make sure this article is kept current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.121.111 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Plane

Who paid for the NDP plane? Is it charter or does Air Canada provide it? --Zybez (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Centre-Left?

Not a big deal, but I think it's a bit confusing to list the NDP as a centre-left party when the Liberal party is also listed as centre-left as well - given that the NDP is most certainly left of the Liberal party. I'd suggest that the NDP would be better described as Left-wing_politics, as centre-left is really a stretch based on NDP ideals. If anyone knows of any other identifiers that might be better, please post them. If anything, I think describing the NDP as 'centre' anything is disparaging to the party. I'll wait a week or so, and if there are no objections I'll go ahead and make a change. --Savant99 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be more technically accurate to describe the (federal) Liberal Party as 'centre' and the NDP as 'centre-left'. --Autospark (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If this was mentioned 4 years ago, (re: Liberal position) then I would agree. However, the Liberals have indeed swung to the left, and there are many in the party that want the Liberals to swing back to the centre. However, from a strict ideology standpoint, I do find it hard to believe that the NDP occupy any part of the 'centre' given their positions on the issues. If anyone can point out centrist ideals that the NDP hold it would be helpful, as I haven't seen any such ideals noted on the actual NDP page itself. It should be noted I don't support a change simply because of the relative position of the Liberal party, it's the NDP ideals that would seem to indicate (to me) that they really don't hold any centrist ideals. I was rooting around on the NDP.CA website to find any references, and I could not find anything that described the party as centrist. However, I did find a page that quoted an article about a party candidate "...said New Democrat Brian Masse, who is the federal Member of Parliament for Windsor West. The NDP is Canada's left-wing party." (ref) While the text is a quotation of an article, it would stand to reason that they would not republish text that did not represent their party's point of view. Barring any objections, I will make the change and use the link above as a reference to support this change. --Savant99 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Liberals have indeed swung somewhat to the left, but I'm not so sure about the big differences between the Liberals and the NDP, apart from a few. ~ Troy (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "centre-left" to "moderately left". The term centre-left usually refers to a coalition of liberals and social democrats, although the New Labour Party uses the term to describe their ideology. However neither of these usages are applicable. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how the NDP in any way occupies the political centre. There is not a single cited reference or source that indicates that they are a centre party and as their own constitution defines them as a party aligned with the socialist movement, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of them occupying the centre. The article itself indicates that one leader "attempted" to move the party towards the centre. Does that not alone verify that they are not a centre party already? Additionally, all of their policies fall on the left side of the spectrum with the focus of more government control over industry, larger social programs and redistribution of wealth from corporations and the wealthy to the poor to middle class. HastelloyX (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How can the Conservative party be considered "centre-right to right" when the NDP is "centre-left", I'd say either change the Conservatives, or put NDP as "centre-left to left"...99.229.114.180 (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

All these discussions of how far left or right or how centrist any political party is are simplistic at best, misleading and showing the individual editor's political bias otherwise. See http://www.politicalcompass.org to get a better understanding of what I mean. I would prefer all such references be omitted whenever possible and instead lay out the history and the current policy platforms of each party and let the individual decide what reference scale to put them on. The NDP position themselves as the party of the "little guy" and both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada have a track record of policies that support the wealthy and the large corporations so from an NDP supporter perspective both those parties are right wing parties, at least economically. From a European perspective, the NDP would be considered somewhat centrist and both Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada top right quandrant, whereas compared to the American continuum all of our parties that have MPs occupying seats in the House of Commons might be considered "centre-left" or "left". It is a meaningless discussion, kind of like the one often put forward from the rightwingnuts in Southern Alberta accusing the mainstream media in Canada of having a "left leaning bias", despite that fact that almost all of the mainstream media are controlled by transnational corporate interests. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The list of policy positions says the party supports reform of the Senate, but the blurb on Lillian Dyck says they don't recognize her because they support abolishing the Senate. Which is true? -Rrius (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the NDP's type of reform for the Senate, is abolishment. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping environmental protection

I really have an issue with the usage of the word "Sweeping". What does it mean to be sweeping? It sounds way too biased. jlam (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, after reader this article, I feel as though I have just read a NDP paid advertisement... 216.99.54.62 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quebec Solidaire

isnt that affilated with the NDP?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, officially Quebec Solidaire is not connected to the New Democrats in any way. Though the ideology may be similar, Solidaire is a grouping of socialists, feminists, environmentalists and sovereigntists. On the topic of sovereignty, the two parties disagree, with the New Democrats adopting a nationalist policy. -- DaHamiltonian (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's certainly possible that some individuals might be simultaneously associated with the QS provincially and the NDP federally, but no, there's no formal affiliation at the organizational level. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressive Tax

where did that go on here?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

A friend of mine from Canada told me today that the NDP are thinking of changing their name to just democratic party. I hav no links or other scores to back it up, but just infoming wiki to say HEADS UP! and watch for info. IMO, chaning it to Labour, or Labour Co-Operative Party, would be a better name. --74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is true, I can verify that as both a Canadian and a member of the New Democrats. There are also numerous links to this story, such as this one from the National Post . Personally, if the party is going to continue its rightward drift, to become the moderate voice in Canadian politics, the name is perfect...but if we are to stay true to our ideals, something like Social Democrats would be preferred. DaHamiltonian (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As a democratic socialist, I'd hate to see the one party I can support drift any more to the right. Also: it's really, really hard to say you support the DP with a straight face. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.81.176 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to stay true to your ideals when almost all the other lemmings are going full speed toward the precipice! ;-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New Democratic Party of Canada is the official name of federal NDP 142.150.49.164 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NO, that is simply not true. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

Why does the side box refer to the NDP as a party of "democratic socialism"? The party does not campaign as a democratic socialist party. The published summary of the NDP website refers to the NDP directly as "Canada's social democratic party", with no reference whatsoever anywhere on its website to "democratic socialism" or "socialism" (except to say that NDP policies are NOT socialist).

Given the fact the party itself does not identify as socialist, I've removed that reference from the sidebox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism is listed in the Preamble of the Federal NDP Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.168.90 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Democratic socialism keeps being added to the ideology section of the infobox without any discussion. I am fully aware that the preamble to the constitution says that the NDP is a democratic socialist party, however that is clearly not what they support today (although some members of the party do). I see no issue in saying that the NDP has democratic socialist roots elsewhere in the article, nor do I have a problem with it saying that to this day, the constitution still says "The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs." But the first thing that a reader sees is the infobox, so I feel that it is misleading to a casual reader to say that it is a democratic socialist party when it is not widely considered to be one today. Another IP address has added the term again today, however I have not reverted it and I will leave it be until we can come to a consensus here. MitchellDuce (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite a source stating it's no longer part of their platform, that would probably help to discourage reversion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It would really be much more the responsibility of those who want it added in the first place to provide cited evidence that the term does accurately describe or characterize the party's platform. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the WP:BURDEN doesn't fall on me. Regardless, I'm posting a link to the 2008 platform as a courtesy: http://xfer.ndp.ca/campaign2008/Platform_2008_EN.pdf. I assure you, there won't be anything in there saying that the NDP intends to abolish capitalism or do anything like that. MitchellDuce (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How many major democratic socalist parties actually want to abolish capitalism these days? Anyway, if the party has shifted away from democratic socialism, the history article should mention that shift and cite an appropriate source. If they have not shifted away from democratic socialism, it should be mentioned in the infobox and main article and a supporting source should be cited. In either case, a source explicitly supporting the assertion would be useful. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nobody's responsibility to find a source to prove a negative. In the absence of a legitimately reliable source indicating that the party does currently espouse a "democratic socialist" platform, the alternative is "no mention at all", not "find a source to prove that they're not socialist or the unsourced claim gets to stay in the article anyway". Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Failing to mention a party's original ideology in the infobox seems like clear-cut recentism. I just checked the articles for a few non-Canadian political parties, the infoboxes in the Democrat and Republican articles have lists of both current and historical ideologies, while the article on the UK's Labour Party lists their constitutional ideology (Democratic Socialism) and three ideological currents: Social Democracy, Third Way and Neoliberalism. Anyway, I've added a missing information tag to the history of the New Democratic Party article, requesting details on the ideological shift. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find the Federal NDP Constitution so we can end this debate once and for all? Another note, I acknowledge that social democracy is the predominant ideology, but most social democratic parties (if you look at the Socialist International) have democratic socialist streams, such as the NDP Socialist Caucus or Fightback. I would argue that since there is no separation of Federal and Provincial Membership and since the provincial parties clearly have mention of Democratic Socialism in the Constitutional Preamble, we should at least mention place Democratic Socialism as a Minority faction or partnered ideology with Social Democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought... "We will not check our socialism at the door" - Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario New Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The NDP Constitution as amended in Halifax in 2009 declares in its preamble that " The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs. The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership; The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity and freedom of the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended; and The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."

I see no justification in removing the label 'Democratic Socialism' from the sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.165 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Against Canadian Forces?

"Cut all funding to the Canadian Forces"

I have just recently seen this line in the article. Do we have proof of this? I don't believe it is true. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The NDP does not want to completely get rid of the military. I'll remove the dubious point. MitchellDuce (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism

Progressivism has been repeatedly been removed from the infobox without discussion or rationale. I would like to discuss its removal here before before it is removed again. MitchellDuce (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism needs to be remove as you have not provided any source of information that the NDP calls themselves progressivism. If we were to list every single ideology that the NDP falls in - then we might as well start a whole new article, listing all possible ideology that NDP has. The ideology list should be clear/simple and summerize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.3.213 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's something unclear and unnecessarily complex about listing a grand total of two ideological labels in an infobox? For one thing, the NDP uses the word "progressive" in several places on its very own website; in truth, I strongly suspect that you don't even know what the word means. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that NDP uses that word? The Progressive Conservatives uses the word all the time before they merge with Canadian Alliance. I do know what the word means but then why not add other ideologies with it? Dirigisme, Social liberalism, Left-wing politics? Beside, why all of a sudden you add progressivism to the list without explaining why? You need to cite the source of why you added it, otherwise the information unreliable.

He's right dude, unless you have something to prove they call themselves 'progressive', what can stop me from adding communism to the ideology title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.132.65 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this one more time: the NDP's own website repeatedly demonstrates the party describing itself as "progressive". No further proof is required beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me proof, give me the link - and that all I required, I have not found anywhere in NDP website that call themselves 'progressive'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canatoba (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that a person has to be either ideologically blinkered or resolutely stupid to take issue with describing the NDP as progressive (while simultaneously not taking issue with describing them as socialist), let's take the following into account:

1. The party's own fundraising materials state: "Join me today and help build a strong and progressive Canada".
2. Here in B.C., NDP governments elected in 1972, 1991, and 1996 have established a lasting legacy of progressive legislation for British Columbians.
3. Now, as leader of Canada's NDP since 2003, he’s making progressive politics a main feature on Parliament Hill...In this minority parliament, his NDP team has fought hard for more innovation and progressive solutions for working families.
4. Ottawa-Vanier NDP: Working hard for progressive change in your community.
5. The mission of the New Democratic Party (NDP) is to elect progressive governments who will work in partnerships with Saskatchewan families and communities to build that society.
6. "The NDP is very progressive and we have a great leader in Jack Layton."
7. "The New Democratic Party is a progressive political party in Canada with a social democratic philosophy."
8. "While we plan for the future and celebrate the past decade in government, it's important to recognize the progressive policies that the NDP has put in place with the support and the direction of the people of the province."
9. "As a member, you’ll help ensure there’s a progressive voice on Parliament Hill and in Queen's Park on issues that matter to you."

Further examples abound of the party, its own elected MPs and MLAs and MPPs, and its own membership extolling the virtues of progressivism and describing the party as a progressive one. This sampling should be enough, but let's point out that you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that the NDP aren't a "progressive" party — you just keep asserting that they're not with no other proof outside of the "because I said so" school of evidence. What exactly is your problem with the word "progressive" here? Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Progressivism forms an important part of their ideology and should remain in the infobox.UBER ^(talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not like your attitude, I do not have any problems with the wording - you need the source in order to declare something like this - whether its obvious or not.

I do have evidence, my early evidence against progressive was that YOU DON'T HAVE any evidence to support progressive. You failed to provide any ration evidence. What you provide are sources for provincials NDP's not the federal version - NONE OF YOUR SOURCE officially declared that the party follows progressivism ideology. Your source simple show a statement from NDP using the word progressive, doesn't mean that they follow progressivism. Harper use the word Socialist couple times, does that make him a socialist? You need to be more civilize, retorting to a cranky child is no way to behave on wikipediaCanatoba (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Relax tiger. The evidence for progressivism has been amply demonstrated above. Now I have a question for you: where is the evidence that they are populist? Until you provide such evidence, I will reinstate the previous version of the infobox. The burden of proof is on you here.UBER ^(talk) 00:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Canatoba, Harper does not use the word socialist to refer to himself or his party, whereas all of the references provided by UberCryxic are referring to the NDP. Secondly, the federal and provincial New Democratic Parties are all one big party, but operate separately (unlike most other political parties in Canada). Article XIII, section 1 of the federal party's constitution says, "Each province of Canada shall have a fully autonomous provincial Party, provided its constitution and principles are not in conflict with those of the Federal Party." I think that's enough proof. Lastly, you said "NONE OF YOUR SOURCE officially declared that the party follows progressivism ideology," whereas they all do. They do not just "[use] the word progressive," they all specifically refer to the NDP as being progressive. I think that we can say that this case is closed - it's not worth anyone's time to carry on debating a widely accepted fact. If you still have concerns, I would advise you to read the Wikipedia article on progressivism and maybe educate yourself on what it means. MitchellDuce (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above comment refers to a comment made by Canatoba which he has since removed. MitchellDuce (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, these references were provided by Bearcat, not me. Otherwise I agree with what you said.UBER ^(talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, let's get one thing straight: "Progressive Conservative" is an oxymoron. To be progressive means you believe in and/or advocate for changes or reforms to current polices that would move from an unenlightened position to an enlightened position. To be a conservative means you either oppose any and all changes regardless of their ideological position, or you favor changes that would move towards an unenlightened position. A classic example is that a progressive is for abolishing slavery, while a conservative is for retaining slavery. Or, to give a more modern example, a progressive advocates polices that are not homophobic, while a conservative advocates for or opposes the repealing of polices that are homophobic. In both examples, the two positions are diametrical opposed.

As far as if the NDP is progressive or not, I'd have to say they are. Just based on the definition of the word "progressive", well, strictly speaking they are a branch or sub-category of Progressives called Social Progressives. As far as citing a source for this, well that's just a matter of research. What we need is an objective analysis of the NDP from a academic perspective that doesn't have any hint of a politically influenced opinion. Anybody out there work in the Political Science department of a major university? We need a paper or textbook that specifically analyzes and classifies the NDP as progressive (or not, as the case may be). Then we could cite that work as an objective, scientific, published, third-party work on the subject, and it would be very hard to object to that and stay within the rules of the Wikipedia. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

I removed the ideology "Democratic Socialism" since the NDP does stand anywhere near socialism plus the fact that there is no evidence that suggest the NDP follow socialism ideology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.42.244 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

True, NDP move to the right after CCF merge with CLC - no longer advocating revolutionary, abolition of capitalism, nationalization of industries and businesses, etc. - Fellow Traveler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.55.168 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

no one has anything to say? wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.13.108 (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted

I've deleted this part "The New Democratic Party began as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a democratic socialist farmers' movement." Which is not 100% as NDP also started off as Canadian Labour Congress. The reason is because the same statement is made twice in the following paragraph when it comes to discussing the CCF.Canatoba (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Audrey mclaughlin HCC.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Audrey mclaughlin HCC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't democratic socialism (referring to the ideology to the left of social democracy) a factional part of the NDP rather than its official ideology?

I may be wrong but isn't democratic socialism a factional part of the NDP's Socialist Caucus rather than part of its official ideology? I remember that historically the NDP has called itself "democratic socialist" but I have heard that it changed its constitution and now only refers to itself as "social democratic"?--R-41 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Category

Category:New Democratic Party of Canada has been nominated for discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the NDP's new constitution now describes the ideology as social democracy alone

In 2011, the NDP changed its constitution that replaced using the term "democratic socialism" with "social democracy". The reasons for this change have generally been summarized that the term "socialism" in North American politics has taken on a negative connotation - especially after the 2008 United States Presidential Election where conservative Republicans denounced then Democratic Presidential candidate Barrack Obama for allegedly being a "socialist". Essentially that the 2008 US Presidential Election resulted in conservative Republicans associating the word "socialism" with state socialism and amongst more extreme American conservatives, associating "socialism" with communism - particularly Soviet Union-style Marxism-Leninism. Due to the current negative and inflammatory recent North American connotations with the term "socialism", the party has replaced its use with "social democracy" that has more moderate political connotations (even though many social democrats consider themselves moderate socialists, and that many social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International). In addition, at least for the duration of Thomas Mulcair's leadership, many in the party and on the outside are expecting the NDP under Mulcair to de-emphasize the socialist aspect historically associated with the NDP and emphasize progressivism and social democracy in order to not alienate centrist and centre-left voters who may view "socialism" as having negative connotations or that socialist policies are currently unachievable given existing political circumstances.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

They're still socialist. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

But they self-identify as a specific variant of socialism - social democracy - and not just socialism in general.--R-41 (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually R-41, they didn't amend their constitution - an amendment was debated but was referred to the party's executive instead of being approved. It'll probably come back to the floor at the next policy convention. See Kady O'Malley's discussion:

"Delegates were all set for an epic floor fight over a resolution that would have excised the existing preamble in favour of one that would, among other changes, replace all references to "democratic socialism" with "social democratic principles." The proposal squeaked through an earlier closed-door workshop session, but more sparks were expected to fly when it went before the full plenary session on Sunday."

"But at the very last minute -- literally -- party president then-elect Brian Topp materialized on stage with an eleventh hour pitch for compromise: specifically, a motion to refer the matter to the federal executive, which would consult with members and report any salient findings at a future convention."

108.161.116.71 (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no one's followed up on this - the new NDP preamble does not define the party as any one ideology now, but does specifically reference both "social democracy" and "democratic socialism", as well as a whole whack of other important social movements: "The new preamble to the constitution would be longer and refers to the party's history as the CCF, as well as a role for government "in helping to create the conditions for sustainable prosperity."

It also refers to seeking a future "which brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour, co-operative, feminist," and other movements." CBC source for this quote. Since the preamble specifies both, I'm putting in both. I assume, furthermore, that since this new preamble is the settled will of the real-world NDP, it is their consensus which counts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there - I see I've been reverted and a call for consensus has been requested. Let's see a consensus against my change, seeing as how I have cited the CBC quoting the new preamble directly. If one emerges, it can only be because you have not read my reliable source material. Let's see a vote on this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been debated extensively in the past. Due to the wide variance of opinions, and the sensitivity of the label, it is generally agreed that the infobox remain as it is before any changes are made and only when there is agreement on the talk page. As for the CBC reference from April 14, 2013, I think you are misreading the intent of what happened. Although the party says that their roots are in social democracy and democratic socialism they are in fact moving away from these ideals towards a more centrist position. So to place these labels in the infobox is inaccurate. Today, the position of the party is more centre-left than anything else. The socialist caucus that remains is only a tiny minority now. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I reject your obvious point of view position on this, and I suspect you are going straight to reversion rather than asking people what they think here on the talk page because you want me to just get bored, drop the issue and walk away. I won't do that. If you have a consensus, let's see it.

There has been _no_ talk page discussion on this. No comments are under this topic since 2012, and the NDP adopted the new preamble _the following year_, so your appeal to previous discussions is pretty obviously specious...there have been none. And since there were discussions, the preamble was passed with the word democratic socialist still in it. The NDP is no longer specifically identifying itself as being a socialist party (and that was a significant development in the preamble change), but the CBC source clearly shows the party still acknowledges the democratic socialist roots of the party. The Socialist Caucus has not been shown the door, they are as much a part of the NDP as any other. There are also many members of the NDP who frankly want nothing to do with the Socialist Caucus, which has a strong Trotskyist element, but who identify as democratic socialist, and many others who object to an artificial distinction between "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" even being drawn in the first place (this is my own point of view, but it is a matter of the factual public record that prominent members of the NDP feel that way, and if you're going to push me on this, I can dig up the necessary quotes proving it). Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, categorization is best left to experts rather than parties themselves, and AFAIK, the NDP is still grouped along with "socialist" parties, such as Labour, the Socialist Party of France, Pasok and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, all of which are to the right of the NDP. TFD (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still in the Socialist International as well, if we're hung up on labels. Also, this is all similar to the UK Labour Party's wrangling over Clause IV of its bylaws, where it was eventually decided Labour would not endorse nationalisation of industry, but the new text of which also specifically mention "democratic socialism". Granted, this occurred in the context of the more-centre-than-left Blair years, but since then Labour has moved leftwards of Blair, and those identifying as democratic socialists have been pretty prominent within the party since then. Anyway, what experts would you consider? I cited the CBC because I thought it was obvious that would be an acceptable reliable source, and the author would be taken to be an experienced political journalist. Are there better experts to cite? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Labour Party page says both "Social democracy" _and_ "Democratic socialism"...and here is a quote from their Talk page discussion which also precisely describes the situation here:

Support per reasons above. The Party (which is a mainstream one not a sect) clearly describes itself as democratic socialist and while that would be enough of itself, there are third party sources to support the identification. To reflect the balance of sources Social Democracy is currently listed first and that is followed by Democratic Socialism. That or variants have been a long standing consensus and its difficult to understand the obsession with removing it. ----Snowded TALK 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Official colours

According to the party website: http://www.ndp.ca/logos Their official colours are orange, green and grey (light and dark). Can green be added?Bodo3 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't we just list orange? That is the NDP's recognised party colour in Canada, federally and provincially...--Autospark (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but this article is about the federal NDP. The provincial NDP has their own page with information regarding itself.Bodo3 (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

New Logo used until 2012 - but nothing after that?

Near the '2006' article it shows a logo used by the NDP until 2012 (with the orange NDP print and the green maple leaf), so what is the logo being used in 2012? From what I see they are starting to use that dark grey background with the orange maple leaf and the white 'NDP' print. Shouldn't it be included of the new NDP logo being used in 2012?Bodo3 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The "current" logo is in the infobox, but really I don't see 2012 as a logo change, it's the same one, in a different colour. 117Avenue (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The NDP has change their logo, the infobox needs an update! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.39.203 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain further? 117Avenue (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Care to check the NDP website?Bodo3 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, http://www.ndp.ca/logos is still the same as the day File:Orange NDP logo English.svg was uploaded. 117Avenue (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the leaf in the logo Bodo3 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, File:Orange NDP logo English.svg and http://www.ndp.ca/logos look exactly alike. Could you please explain to me what you are thinking? 117Avenue (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You aren't really lookingBodo3 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to see what you are referring to, until you are more clear. 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant, I was referring to the leaf - they changed the orientation of the leaf.Bodo3 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably to make writing the SVG easier. You'd really have to look very close to see the difference. I don't think its something to be concerned about, unless the uploader is willing to change it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Flanagan as the first reference on the NDP?! Might as well use Rush Limbaugh as the first reference on Obama!

The firstreference in the intro is a source by Tom Flanagan, a very partisan right-wing political analyst who used to be associated with the Reform Party of Canada and now associated with the Conservative Party of Canada. Also Flanagan is a very unhinged, he publicly stated in a television news interview that he wished a drone aircraft be used to assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. A less unhinged person would be taken more seriously here. It is an extremely inappropriate choice of a source, it would be like having Rush Limbaugh as the first reference on the Barrack Obama article. Please select another reference from a less partisan political analyst.--R-41 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It should not be used because it is an introductory textbook. However the political views of a writer are absolutely separate on whether or not it is rs. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Preceded By

I'm confused by the information presented in the 'preceded by' in the info box. I'm under the impression that the NDP was created as a merger between CCF and New Party. When in fact it was the CCF and Canadian Labour Congress merger that created the New Party which transformed into the NDP. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to add only the 'New Party' in the info box titled 'preceded by' and remove the CCF reference? The purpose of this suggestion is to avoid mistaken impression.Bodo3 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Although the New Party as established as a joint venture, the CCF continued to exist until it was merged into the NDP and NP clubs became accredited to the NDP. Many CCFers initially opposed the merger and did not join the NP. AFAIK Pitman was the only person elected under the NP banner and sat in parliament as part of the CCF caucus. TFD (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Is "merger" the correct term?"

Is "merger" the correct term in this sentence in the second paragraph: "The NDP was founded in 1961 out of the merger of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)." The CCF ceased to exist, but the Canadian Labour Congress still exists, as a separate entity from the NDP, but with close links, such as the 25% voting interest mentioned in the article. Would a term like "alliance" be better? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the term that is normally used. The CLC under the merger became part of the NDP, while individual members of the CCF became part of the NDP. TFD (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Political Position

Sorry to challenge an earlier consensus, but I believe that "left of centre to centre-left" would probably fit the scope of the Party's identity better than "centre-left". While I would agree that the Party has drifted to the centre under the leaderships of the late Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair, there is a strong and vibrant left-wing represented amongst the rank and file (and even within the NDP Caucus itself). Indeed, many of the leadership candidates, possibly most, in the upcoming leadership race will likely run to the Left of Mulcair.

The Conservative Party is listed as "right of centre to centre-right," and the Liberals are listed as "centre to centre-left," owing to the fact that there is ideological diversity within those parties. The NDP is no less ideologically diverse (speaking as a card-carrying New Democrat, who has been active in Party activism for over half a decade). Regarding the Party's provincial counterparts, some are more moderate than others, ergo "centre-left" strictly doesn't do all justice. For example, the Nova Scotia NDP of Gary Buril has moved decidedly to the Left since its defeat in the last provincial election, and arguably the British Columbia NDP has always been further Left than its counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I am going to amend the section, and I hope it doesn't draw any protest Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The consensus for "political position" was "centre-left". As the Liberals are, according to Wiki, "centre" , while the Conservatives are "centre-right"; the NDP is "centre-left", not "left-wing". There are plenty of sources for this, that were provided when the consensus was made last time regarding this. There was also a note placed AFTER the consensus was reached, asking that no one change it without a new consensus.

The NDP is on the centre-left of the Canadian political spectrum; ESPECIALLY under Thomas Mulcair. "Social Democracy" is a centre-left ideology.

Also, the NDP's provincial counterparts are all listed as "centre-left". They are a typical "centre-left, social-democratic political party".

Perhaps "centre-left to left-wing" might also be acceptable (although even THAT would be questionable), however "left-wing" alone is out of step with not only consensus, but also in relation to the descriptions listed for the other two major federal parties in Canada, and also the NDP's provincial cousins.

Will someone please fix this, as I cannot right this moment? 174.92.92.220 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I just checked out the source that was used to change it to "left-wing". It is from an informal blog. Plus, that blog's main/home page (www.canadapage.org) says that it is now defunct because of better sources available now.

I replaced it with a reliable source (with a PHD).

I shouldn't have had to do that, but I was too lazy to dig through the history to find the ORIGINAL MANY sources that had been used (AND had consensus around them too), that confirmed that "centre-left" is appropriate. 174.92.92.220 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Liberals are at least as left wing as the Conservatives are right. Therefore I would suggest that Centre-Right is appropriate for the Conservatives, and Centre-Left for the Liberals. The NDP are certainly to the left of the Liberals. As a social(ist) democratic party they would be Left, not centre-left. How is "left-wing alone is out of step .... in relation to the descriptions listed for the other two major federal parties in Canada"? As the NDP is to the left of the Liberals, Left would seem appropriate.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to New Democratic Party, dab page moved to New Democratic Party (disambiguation). The consensus is that simply "New Democratic Party" is the common name (as well as official name) of the federal party and also that it is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

---

New Democratic Party (Canada) → New Democratic Party of Canada – All the points of WP:CRITERIA point towards this title being preferred.

1. Recognizability - while the WP:COMMONNAME of the party is simply the ambiguous New Democratic Party, the proposed title is more recognizable because it is actually used by sources (ie on the party's website and the title of their constitution)
2. Naturalness - WP:NATURAL says parenthetical disambiguation should only be used "if natural disambiguation is not possible" but in this case the proposed title is natural
3. Precision - both are equally precise
4. Conciseness - both are equally concise (ok technically the current title is 1 space shorter)
5. Consistency - the proposed title is consistent with other ambiguous federal parties: Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, Green Party of Canada. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC) TDL (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree because it is their official name. Since we need to include Canada in the title, better to include it in the name. TFD (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The official name is actually New Democratic Party. It's not the "NDPC". -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but we don't title articles after their WP:OFFICIALNAME, but rather their WP:COMMONNAME, so what their official name is is irrelevant. The proposed title is actually used by sources to describe the party (ie [1], [2], [3]) while the current title is not. According to policy we should chose the title which is actually used rather than inventing a contrived disambiguation that is never used.

And besides, the official names isn't "New Democratic Party (Canada)" either. The official name is not unavailable so we are forced to pick something else. TDL (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, but the common name is New Democratic Party, not "New Democratic Party of Canada", which is rare. Since that article name is unavailable, the disambiguation marker is needed. That's fine; it's how we do things at Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Right but when disambiguation is necessary we rely on policy to dictate how to do it. And the policy favours the more natural and recognizable alternative. "NDP of Canada" might be rare, but it's far more common than "NDP (Canada)". TDL (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What's in the brackets should be ignored when it comes to the common name of the topic. It only exists as a disambiguator. The rest of the article title should be the common name of the topic. The disambiguator only exists to disambiguate and has NOTHING to do with the actual name. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And is there any policy that supports your argument that ambiguous articles should be titled with their common name followed by a parenthetical disambiguator? Because WP:NATURAL says just the opposite: that this should only be done "if natural disambiguation is not possible". In this case clearly it is possible. TDL (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was the official name because their constitution says "New Democratic Party of Canada."[4] However that seems close enough. TFD (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I have explained previously the name of the organization is "New Democratic Party of Canada", the name of the federal political party is "New Democratic Party", as stated in Article I of the constitution. WP:PPAP states articles on political parties shall be named by their official name as registered with Elections Canada, which is "New Democratic Party". 117Avenue (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Except the current title is "New Democratic Party (Canada)" and not the registered name "New Democratic Party" due to the ambiguity of the official name. Unless you're proposing that we move the article to New Democratic Party, then the debate is between two titles, neither of which comply with WP:PPAP as the registered name. As PPAP is silent on how to disambiguate, we must fall back to WP:AT which prefers natural and recognizable alternatives to contrived, unused titles. TDL (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, on the basis that we have Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, Green Party of Canada, etc. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"New Democratic Party" is consistent with those, they are all official names. 117Avenue (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

But "New Democratic Party" isn't the title of this article, and "New Democratic Party (Canada)" is inconsistent with the other titles as it is an unofficial, contrived name. TDL (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of each party's constitution defines its name.[5][6][7] Notice the NDP is the only one that does not use "of Canada" as part of its name, although it uses it in the title of the document. Each provincial party is a section of the NDP. For example "The name of the Party shall be the NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ONTARIO. The New Democratic Party of Ontario will constitute a section of the New Democratic Party (of Canada)."[8] TFD (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:NATURAL among many, many others. Red Slash 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Why not just call it "New Democratic Party" and have a link at the top to the disambiguation page. That would appear to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TFD (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be having a primary topic discussion, when the article was moved in November 2012 there wasn't really a discussion. I now see that the user that performed that move has been blocked for disruptive behaviour. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the federal party is simply called the New Democratic Party, so the article should be called New Democratic Party (Canada), or as per TFD's suggestion, New Democratic Party with a link to a disambig page, not New Democratic Party of Canada.--Autospark (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• oppose I live in Canada and I don't recall anyone (friends, newcasters, political commators) ever refer to the psrty as New Democratic Party of Canada,--67.68.162.111 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pursuant to article I of the NDP constitution and the party's registration with Elections Canada, the name of the party is New Democratic Party. Yes, the article title is inconsistent with other articles for Canadian political parties, but that is because the party names are themselves inconsistent. I agree with TFD and 117Avenue that the article may meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so perhaps we should be considering moving it to New Democratic Party. Graham11 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Query/comment As I understand it, the New Democratic Party is one party, provincial and federal and sometimes municipal. Or do the provincial parties have their own articles? Having to dab this at all in that case seems wrong; it's not just a federal party. What could be used instead I don't know; both common and official names are, from what I'm reading in people's cites above, simply "New Democratic Party". Or does e.g. NDPBC (New Democratic Party of British Columbia) have its own article?Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Each provincial party has its own article, as do the other Canadian parties. But that is partly because each article would otherwise be extremely long. Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, the NDP was set up as a national party with provincial sections. Liberals of course pre-date confederation and hence most of the provincial parties existed before the national party, while the Conservative Party was set up as a national party with no provincial sections. TFD (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Firstly they are organizations/associations, sometimes party is the wrong term. The name of the legally organized organization is "New Democratic Party of Canada", this article is not about that, but there is a category for it. This article is about the federal political party. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Why do you say the "legally organized" party is called the "New Democratic Party of Canada?" Their constitution says, "ARTICLE I NAME The name of this political party shall be the New Democratic Party."[9] Elections Canada lists them as the "New Democratic Party", while several other parties include "of Canada" as party of their name. Some parties, such as the Bloc Quebecois, do not.[10] TFD (talk)
        • Again, you are confusing organization and party. Any legal entity (whether political or not) will form with a constitution and a name, they are not required to register their organization (with whoever they would register with), with the same name. 117Avenue (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Since TDL hasn't mentioned it here, I should note that he or she has opened an RFC on a related issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#RFC on official names versus common names as a result of this discussion. Graham11 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

Given that the above requested move may be closed in as few as two days and there appears not to be consensus to move, I'm wondering if there is significant opposition to TFD and 117Avenue's suggestion of moving the article back to its old location: New Democratic Party. Graham11 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be supporting the current RM, if the other pages were moved to Conservative Party (Canada), Liberal Party (Canada) etc, as we have (for example) Conservative Party (UK). -- GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that to say you would be opposed to moving this article to New Democratic Party with no reference to the country unless it were done consistently with the articles for other major federal Canadian parties? Graham11 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Allright, I'll accept New Democratic Party, since Canada's NDP is the polticial party 'most' associated with that name. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree GoodDay, the difference is that "of Canada" is part of the names of Canada's Conservative and Liberal Parties. Supposedly they have seen a reason to distinguish themselves from other Conservative and Liberal Parties, while the NDP has not. TFD (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are or have been New Democratic Parties in at least seven other countries. While some of these are defunct or minor, that is a pretty critical mass for saying that "New Democratic Party" is too common a term to be used for just one party, and that's not even getting into the articles about the Canadian NDP's various branches. Ground Zero | t 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • See "Is there a primary topic?", which is part of the "Disambiguation" guideline: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." "This is the topic to which the term should lead...." For example, when readers type in "Paris", chances are they are looking for Paris, France, not Paris, Texas or Paris, Ontario. If they are they can navigate from the article. In the last 90 days, 12,207 editors have clicked on "New Democratic Party",[11], 47,775 have clicked on "New Democratic Party (Canada)",[12] while 489 have clicked on "New Democratic Party (Serbia).[13] Obviously most readers are looking for the Canadian NDP. Why put them through the hassle of having to go through a disambiguation page, unless we want to tell them it isn't the only New Democratic Party in the world. But if they care to know, a disambiguation note at the top of the NDP's page would tell them. TFD (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit misleading. Sure if one cherrypicks an obscure item on New Democratic Party then one can distort the facts to make it look like the NDPC is the primary topic. But doing a bit of math (all numbers for the last 90 days):

Ontario New Democratic Party 23,454

British Columbia New Democratic Party 5,624

Saskatchewan New Democratic Party 4,071

Alberta New Democratic Party 3,834

New Democratic Party of Manitoba 3,308

Nova Scotia New Democratic Party 1,895

New Democratic Party of Quebec 1,705

New Brunswick New Democratic Party 1,606

Yukon New Democratic Party 1,337

Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party 1,135

New Democratic Party of Prince Edward Island 907

Total for this subset of NDP articles: 48,876

It quickly becomes clear that in total all the other NDP articles get MORE hits than the NDPC article. Since that is the case, it really can't be argued that this article is "highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches" when more readers are searching for other articles. TDL (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

All those articles are about organizations that are part of the New Democratic Party. No reasonable reader would expect that punching in "New Democratic Party" would return an article about a provincial party. TFD (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving to New Democratic Party. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per evidence above that the other NDP articles get more hits than this article, and hence this article isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TDL (talk)
  • As I explained above, all those parties are part of the New Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that all those "parts" are commonly referred to as simply the "New Democratic Party". Just check out the CBC, Ottawa Citizen, National Post, Globe and Mail, etc., etc., etc. TDL (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The CBC article refers to the "Ontario NDP" leader and all the other articles are clearly referring to Ontario politics. It's a bit like saying "Mayor of Toronto" is not a common name, because some references will say "Toronto Mayor Rob Ford", while articles about Toronto council will just refer to "the mayor." So do we change the article "Mayor of Toronto" to "Mayor (Toronto)". Think that helps readers navigate to that article? What is the point of your comment anyway? TFD (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"What is the point of your comment anyway?" - I'm starting to ask myself that very question with regards to my interactions with you. It seems you either ignore or fail to comprehend everything I say and start ranting about some unrelated issue.

Yes of course the ONDP goes by other names, but you have become confused between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The question wasn't "what is the common name of the ONDP?" It was "what is the primary topic of the name NDP?" and in particular is "New Democratic Party" "highly likely" to mean the federal party. As the sources above demonstrate, this unqualified name is frequently used for other parties.

Your "Mayor of Toronto" example is a question of what the common name is and not what the primary topic is, and thus is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion. TDL (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you are now resorting to personal attacks, I assume you are running out of arguments. I can only re-cap that Canada has a party officially called the "New Democratic Party", which also happens to be its "Common name". It has provincial sections which must be disambiguated, which can be done by using their official names. But there is no need to disambiguate the article about the party because it is overwhelmingly the main target of readers. The other two major parties are different because there is another Conservative Party and other Liberal parties in Canada and (especially historically) in other countries. The Conservative Party of Canada has no provincial sections, while the Liberal Party has only four. TFD (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:WIAPA as absolutely none of what I wrote above is a personal attack. I'd also note that unsubstantiated accusations of personal attacks are themselves personal attacks, so please refrain from such accusations.

Recapping your arguments, while completely ignoring the points that have been made, is not helpful. In fact, it is the entire problem of this discussion. Please read my post and respond to the points being made rather than just repeating the same mantra over and over again.

"it is overwhelmingly the main target of readers" - the evidence I presented above, which has yet to be refuted, demonstrates the contrary.

The rest of your post, about the relationship between federal and provincial parties, is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the question of what the primary topic of "New Democratic Party" is so I will not engage in a pointless debate on that with you that is destined to go in circles . TDL (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment "I'm starting to ask myself that very question with regards to my interactions with you. It seems you either ignore or fail to comprehend everything I say and start ranting about some unrelated issue." does not appear to be WP:CIVIL. Is that how you normally talk to people? See definitions for "rant".[14] TFD (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Now you've changed the subject again. Do you understand the difference between a WP:PA and WP:CIVILITY? Yes I think that your actions here and here fit the definition "to complain in a way that is unreasonable" quite well. You have repeatedly complained unreasonably about for example how you think I'm engaging in some sort of nefarious deeds without any sort of reasonable evidence to support this. Do you often make unsubstantiated bad faith accusations against long-term good faith editors with which you have never interacted with before? ([15], [16], [17])

I'm sorry if it upsets you that I point out that you are not listening to what I say, but it really makes conversing with you impossible. And it's quite WP:UNCIVIL to ignore what people say and then falsely accuse them of things based on your poor understand of what was said. If you took the time to actually read what has been written, it should help avoid this communication breakdown. But if you aren't going to read what I write, I really have no idea how to explain anything to you. Falsely accusing people of lying and then getting upset and demanding civility when they call you on it is a bit rich. TDL (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it's pretty clear that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but since there seems to be some doubt, let's look at the alternatives starting with those outside of Canada.

• New Democratic Party (Albania): defunct party in a country with a population of 3 million which doesn't appear to have won more than four seats.
• New Democratic Party (New Zealand): defunct party that only contested one election in the 1970s and walked away with no seats and less than 1% of the popular vote.
• New Democratic Party (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines): in a small Caribbean nation with a population of 103,000 (i.e, smaller than Thunder Bay).
• New Democratic Party (South Korea): defunct party which existed from 1963 to 1980. Unlike the others, seems to have played a fairly significant role during its existence, but for only a short time in history.
• New Democratic Front (Sri Lanka): defunct party whose only major "claim to fame" appears to have been jointly nominating a presidential candidate along with other opposition parties in 2010. Also uses a slightly different name.
• New Democracy Party of China: defunct (and banned) Chinese pro-democracy party. I'm not sure how significant it is, but it includes "of China" in the article name, so it wouldn't be a conflict.
• New Democratic Party–Greens: minor party in Serbia (population: 7.2 million) which received a record 5.70% popular vote in the recent parliamentary election. Since the NDP's merger with the Greens, there is no naming conflict here either.
• United New Democratic Party: defunct South Korean party which emerged from splinter groups of the Uri Party and which existed for seven months in 2007 during which it nominated the second-place presidential candidate. Also wouldn't be a naming conflict.

In contrast to the other New Democratic Parties with identical article titles, the long-term significance of the Canadian New Democratic Party is well established. For instance:

• It currently forms the federal official opposition in Canada (a major country).
• While not having formed federal government, it has nonetheless been seen as a significant player in federal elections over its 50-year history (as acknowledged in its standard inclusion in all election article infoboxes).
• The NDP currently forms government in Manitoba, which it has done since 1999 and for the majority of the party's history (since it was founded in 1961).
• It has formed government in Saskatchewan for the majority of the party's history.
• It spent 13 (of its roughly 50 years) in power in British Columbia and has formed governments in Nova Scotia and Ontario.
• The introduction of universal health care in Canada — widely seen as a landmark event in the country's history — is widely regarded either as being a result of the NDP's efforts or as having been influenced by them.

It was suggested that this article couldn't be chosen as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the articles for the party's provincial/territorial sections which collectively receive a significant number of hits. Firstly, it should be noted that collective number of hits to provincial/territorial section articles that TDL cited — 48,876 — includes 23,454 hits for Ontario, which is only natural given that there was a provincial election there last month and it is the country's largest province. This is, therefore, definitely not a typical 90-day period.

Secondly, when someone is searching for a provincial/territorial section of the party (whether with Google or with Wikipedia's search function), they will almost certainly include that province or territory's name in their search. I would be shocked to find more than a small fraction of those 48,876 hits coming from the disambiguation page. Reasonably, one wouldn't expect to see as many searches for the federal party including the word "Canada". And as TFD mentioned, although provincial sections of the party may sometimes be referred to in news articles without using the province's name, this is done when it is obvious which provincial section is being referred to and is no different than using the term "the mayor" to refer to the mayor of a specific municipality.

And thirdly, we have to keep in mind the fact that the party's provincial/territorial sections are just that: sections. Unlike all other political parties in Canada, the party operates at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels and has an integrated membership structure (despite the fact that they legally register as separate entities and are required to maintain largely separate administrative operations at the different levels). As such, there is one New Democratic Party in Canada. While the article does not currently include very much information on the provincial/territorial sections, it certainly could (and probably should) include more. The provincial/territorial articles would them be similar in concept to (though of course not the same as) subarticles. This way, in the uncommon scenario of someone winding up on the federal party article when they were looking for a provincial/territorial section, they can either click on the disambiguation hatnote or find a link to the relevant provincial/territorial article along with information about it later on in the article.

Since that was more than I planned on writing, I'll summarize (tl;dr):

1. None of the other New Democratic Party articles about countries outside of Canada are about parties that even remotely compare with the long-term significance of their Canadian counterpart.
2. The previously referenced 48,876 collective hits to the provincial/territorial articles over the past 90 days is greatly inflated due to Ontario's provincial election last month.
3. If you're searching for a provincial/territorial section of the NDP, you'll probably include that province or territory's name, but you might not include "Canada" in a search for the federal party. Use of the term "New Democratic Party" by the media in reference to a particular provincial/territorial section is no different than use of the term "the mayor" in reference to the mayor of a particular city.
4. Unlike all other Canadian parties, the New Democratic Party operates federally and provincially/territorially. The provincial/territorial parties are sections of the party. As such, it makes sense for the federal party to be the main article, and the article could include more information about the provincial/territorial sections.

Graham11 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair point about the recent election, but there's also a significant spike in NDPC hits correlating with ONDP's. In the last 30 days (post-election), ONDP gets 2,293/9,389 ~ 25% the hits of the NDPC. I'd argue that's still significant. While I agree that the non-Canadian NDPs don't have the long-term significance of the Canadian NDPs, the question is how does their combined significance compare to the NDPC? Lots of not so significant things can add up to something significant. An argument could be made that some provincial parties (ie Ontario/BC) have more long-term significance than the NDPC, as they've actually formed government.

Also, as argued above by others, this article isn't about the entire NDP organization, but rather only the federal party. The name of the organization is "New Democratic Party of Canada", which organizes a federal party named "New Democratic Party". If we were to rescope this a page to be about the entire organization, and make the provincial pages WP:SUBPAGES, this article would need to be titled "New Democratic Party of Canada" to reflect that. This seems like a reasonable option to me, but isn't an argument in favour of moving the page to "New Democratic Party".

With regards to the "mayor" argument, you're looking at the situation backwards. If we're discussing what the primary topic of the term "mayor" is, we look at how the term "mayor" is used. You can argue that sometimes it's used for the "Mayor of Toronto", and within Canada maybe even it's the most frequent usage. But the relevant question is "is the unqualified term "mayor" highly likely to refer to "Mayor of Toronto""? The analogy of your argument (in a fantasy Canada-only wiki) is that Mayor of Toronto should be moved to mayor since it's the most frequent meaning of the word. My argument is that while "mayor" might frequently mean "Mayor of Toronto", there is significant usage that means other things and hence mayor should cover all possible meanings of the ambiguous term "mayor". That each of these "mayors" also goes by other names doesn't change the fact that "mayor" means many different things, and collectively this diversity of usage means there's no primary topic for the term. TDL (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, your point #3 can be refuted by looking at the page views for the disambig page New Democratic Party. On election day (June 12), "New Democratic Party" got roughly 700 extra page view above the July average, while "Ontario New Democratic Party" got roughly 2000. The disambig page has virtually no links, so all these extra hits likely came from searches. Assuming most of these extra people were looking for ONDP election info (a safe bet), that implies at least 35% were searching "New Democratic Party" without an Ontario when looking for the ONDP. TDL (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You just went and completely ignored TFD's reply that there is only the New Democratic Party and THAT is the name of the party at all levels; that is the official name of the party WITHOUT "of Canada" appended; I submit that the other articles e.g. New Democratic Party of British Columbia is mis-titled; in reality the figures given for each province are for the members of the party in each province; there are suborganizations per each province's Societies Act or whatever law governs political parties, but there is no distinction between a provincial membership and a federal one; they are the same party and the name of that party does NOT have "of Canada" appended.Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I said. What I said is that there's an organization called "New Democratic Party of Canada" whose constitution founds a federal political party and numerous provincial political parties. The federal party is named "New Democratic Party". If you read the BC NDP constitution, for example, it says "The Party shall constitute a section of the New Democratic Party of Canada". So as I understand it, the correct way to think of it is that both the federal party and all provincial parties are branches of the larger "New Democratic Party of Canada" organization. This is in line with what User:117Avenue argued above. TDL (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

While the name of the document is CONSTITUTION OF THE New Democratic Party of Canada, it clearly states, "ARTICLE I NAME The name of this political party shall be the New Democratic Party." It does not distinguish between the "New Democratic Party of Canada" and the "New Democratic Party." And it is registered with Elections Canada as the "New Democratic Party." Can you provide any sources that explain the distinction you are making? TFD (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So what do you propose that the "New Democratic Party of Canada" is then? The sources I provided demonstrate that it has a constitution, and that the BC NDP is a section of it. The name of the federal party is "New Democratic Party", so it can't be that. What else could the "New Democratic Party of Canada" be? Any alternative suggestions? TDL (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be an alternative unofficial name of the "New Democratic Party", similar to "Canada's NDP." If they meant something different by it, one would expect them to provide a definition, which they do not. And is up to you to provide a source if you think it means something different. TFD (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't my responsibility to definitively disprove your argument, it's your responsibility to make a logically consistent argument which is supported by sources. The fundamental premise of your argument for a rename is that the BC NDP is a part of the federal NDP party, but that isn't what sources actually say. What they say is that it's a "section of the New Democratic Party of Canada". If you want to make this argument, it's up to you to back the argument with sources that say way you argue, not sources that say something entirely different and making unsupported guesses at what you believe the sources "appear" to mean or what you would "expect" them to do to try and hide the logical hole in your argument. TDL (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to New Democratic Party. The federal party is the primary topic, the provincial parties are only referred to by the abbreviated name in the provincial context, and the're sections of the federal. 117Avenue (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to New Democratic Party, for the same reasons given by the post above.--Autospark (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to New Democratic Party per 117Ave and Autospark and I'm finding the retorts from the nom to fall into the realm of the counterlogical and anti-obvious; "appears" nothing, the constitution of the party says straight-out "New Democratic Party", without "Canada", and the specious arguments about the "parts" in each province being somehow different and "more notable" is utterly off-base, given the famously unitary nature of the party's organization. And I don't have comprehension problems...but I do have a problem being patient with people talking in circles and advancing nonsensical views by guideline-tossing and trumped-up NPA claims.Skookum1 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think a "part" of something is a priori never "more notable" than the whole, then you've got a lot of work to do starting RMs: Rio de Janeiro (state), Kolkata district, Istanbul Province, The Coca-Cola Company, Zamboni Company, Taser International, ... I'm aware of no policy that says the top level structure of a "unitary" organization is automatically the primary topic. We need to actually look at evidence, and in this case the evidence suggests that it's not.

Anyways, you're welcome to your opinion but I fail to see how accusing others of "advancing nonsensical views" while simultaneously misrepresenting said views is helpful to moving the discussion forward. To reiterate, no one has ever suggested that the party is not named "New Democratic Party". TDL (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to closer: Skookum1 has engaged in WP:CANVASing targeted at an audience they admit is partisan here. TDL (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• reply more procedural gambits instead of correctly assessing the sources, instead of interpreting them to suit yourself. I asked Bearcat for his knowledge of the party, believing he was a member and maybe organizer; otherwise known as the horse's mouth, but he's not, he's only voted them for a couple of times and doesn't see a COI issue for himself, which is why I'd asked him about that as to why maybe he hadn't commented here; he says he doesn't care. So "polling" to you constitutes asking someONE for their opinion or asking if they are inherently COI; that's not "polling" at large, it's consulting another Canadian editor who I thought might have expertise about this; I didn't lobby him to vote one way or the other, it was by way of notification ONLY and asking about the possible COI, which doesn't even apply. I did not exhort him to vote one way or the other, I was just asking him if COI was why he hadn't taken part; it's not. So distorting guidelines to suit your agenda, that seems to be a pattern as seen above when you try to refute what the party's constitution says its official name is, and you continue to misrepresent the provincial units as inherently separate; which they are not, when you get an NDP card in BC it's the same card you get in Nova Scotia or Ontario or Newfoundland, you have joined the national party at the same time as joining the federal party. Maintaining they are different when they are not is highly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and while you assert others have comprehension problems I assert you have a stubborn irrationalist problem; but "don't bother explaining yourself to someone committed to misunderstanding you"; and going on attack with guideline-tossing is typical of those who don't have a leg to stand on. That you worry that someone "partisan" (a member of the party) would be "biased" rather than factual in his knowledge of the proper name of the party is quite beyond your abilities to admit to; you are dragging out this nomination with yet more irrational counterarguments and trying to refute the known-at-large reality that there is only ONE New Democratic Party in Canada, and that its constitution, therefore its legal definition, mandates that it "shall be known as the New Democratic Party". Why not "of Canada"? Because it's not needed, for one thing, and does not refer to the federal tier of the organization alone. It is one body, with one name. Asserting that reality is different because of grok.se searches is just more speciousness in face of reality. Official names are used for various items in Wikipedia, from regional districts to aboriginal governments; do I have to list all such items for you and waste yet more time on an RM that should have been shot down before leaving the gate.Skookum1 (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"I don't have comprehension problems" ... so comprehend this:

• "you try to refute what the party's constitution says its official name is" - No. The federal party's official name, according to the constitution, is "New Democratic Party" and I've never once said otherwise.
• "you continue to misrepresent the provincial units as inherently separate" - No. The provincial units are inherently part of the national organization and I've never once said otherwise.

Hopefully this clears up your lingering confusion, though none of this is actually relevant to what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. If you disagree with my argument then fine, but please stop making things up and claiming that I've said them just to further your disinformation campaign to discredit me personally. TDL (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As if you weren't doing that yourself to others here as well as me...and your snotty edit comment "comprehend this" sounds like tough-guy talk and has that "tone" in it that says you want to use that "comprehend" word as if you are the only one who does. What's the PRIMARYTOPIC is not the twaddle you are advancing, and this MOSTCOMMON vs. OFFICIAL I've seen before mis-used; there's more in each of those than you and others who flaunt and flout them like this don't seem to comprehend. There's another big one, too, and it goes like this ("comprehend this") as it were: the Fifth Pillar. There are no rules. There's also precision and conciseness in TITLE, which is policy as opposed to the guidelines you're tossing about without apparently having fully read, and having an unnecessary "(Canada)" or "of Canada" is contrary to both precision and conciseness. Your continuing and unretracted pretense that the provincial "locals" of the party are not the same party and so are candidates for PRIMARYTOPIC> which is hogwash.Skookum1 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A related discussion has began at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 11#Category:New Democratic Party (Canada). 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)