Talk:Green Party of Canada/Archive 1

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

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

More critical parts in the current version were introduced here

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

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

Richard Schwarting - 2004.04.30 - 1:28AM EST

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

Edit of Sept 17, 2004
Fixed negative pov in second paragraph with something more balanced.

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

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

Edit of Dec 9, 2004
Changed ideology "eco-capitalist" (negative pov) to "progressive", "green" and "populist" -- The Green Party of Canada is not as "left" as some other Green Parties, but it is not certainly not "right-wing" as some Canadian lefties argue.

references: - latest federal platform.

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


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


 * - fundraising chair, elected with 91% of the vote, and nominated candidate in Toronto-Centre, resigns (this is the mildest of the letters but she made other interesting statements on the record previously - see this page
 * , another GPC Council member, the Treasurer (who also resigned the party)
 * Chair of the Revenue Committee resigns, as the entire Committee calls for a General Meeting, saying the party is in its worst state in his 12 years of involvement
 * , international secretary, also a GPC Council member
 * The international secretary, also a GPC Council member resigns, with some quite colourful language especially about Jim Harris (politician).
 * A Shadow Cabinet member resigns her post and her nomination

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

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

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


 * No personal attacks. I am not a member of the GPC, so please don't insult me like that. I'm trying to maintain the blanace of the article. Your edits are inflamatory and POV. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the fourth different excuse you have offered to keep true but unfavourable information about the GPC out of this article. If there is inflammatory information it is in the resignation letters from people in official positions - read them, please, and determine whether what is said about them in the article is a fair report.


 * As for "POV", this is a political party and has its own POV, and everything is a POV anyway - only an idiot expects "that is POV" to stand up to scrutiny - please explain exactly what statements are taking a POV that is not being fairly attributed. In most cases, as long as the quotes are attributed to those who wrote them in official correspondence, that is "neutral".  You are confusing neutrality in reporting, with some kind of ideological balance, which Wikipedia is not here to provide.  Consider:


 * Objective information such as the actual average number of edits on the GPC Living Platform is fair game, easily verified, and given the January date set for the next election, it is also fair to say that the deadline can't be met by that method.


 * It is also easy to verify that the letters relate to internal matters, not external ones.

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. -- Spinboy 02:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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

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


 * Sorry, you were the one who "reverted the article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours". Each time I restored the article you censored, which was Green Party of Canada, I changed the wording to deal with issues you had raised, although it was based on a revert.  This is not a violation of the three-revert rule, but your behaviour is.


 * ...This text was modified by User:spinboy... And, it is you who did not discuss the edits.  Your violation has been reported:

User:Spinboy
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 21:17 20 Jun 2005
 * 2nd revert: 01:12 20 Jun 2005
 * 3rd revert: 02:22 20 Jun 2005
 * 4th revert: 03:40 20 Jun 2005

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

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


 * The issue has been discussed often, apparently. The term is acceptable seemingly to both those who like that label, and those who do not.  Those who do not like that label tend also not to like the party or its direction.  Accordingly it is probably neutral.


 * As as recently joined member of the GPC I don't think that the term is innately wrong but I will point out that this article is the first place I have seen the word. If it is a way of refering to the Green tax shift, then my opinion is that it reflects only a portion of the policy and should placed along side "progressive" or "socially progressive" as well as the 6 key values highlited more strongly.

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


 * This is nonsense. WHAT exactly is disputed?   You have said nothing yet.


 * The prior version of this version of the talk page which you deliberately censored answered to your "concerns", for instance: "Objective information such as the actual average number of edits on the GPC Living Platform is fair game, easily verified, and given the January date set for the next election, it is also fair to say that the deadline can't be met by that method."  The absurd statement that the republication of the resignation letters in a wiki makes them invalid is just stupid.


 * Every political party has its troubles. This party is the same as every other party in Canada, some of which have had far more visible troubles.  The fact that this party is minor and hard to find out about doesn't mean that the neutral position is any nicer to them than it is to anyone else.


 * Deleting statements from the talk page, adding a "dispute" notice when there is in fact no specific dispute whatsoever, is acting in bad faith:


 * You have already violated the 3RR, and custom regarding talk pages. You do not have the right to do these things.  You should leave this page alone, at least until you have read the actual evidence in those letters.


 * I didn't delete anything from the talk page, except stuff that violated the policy on no personal attacks, so please keep your slander to yourself. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 4 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it violates policy to censor comments without at least marking it with a "..." or something to indicate that you modified them from the originals. You calling facts "slander" is in fact a personal attack, but who cares?


 * I'm not acting in bad faith either, I'm allowed to dispute what you put there. That's why we have those tags. When you can be rational and stop attacking me, I'll discuss it with you. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 4 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)


 * You have NOT disputed ANYTHING: you have said absolutely NOTHING about the facts in this article.  You have cited NO specific coloured language.  There is NO dispute.  And the notice will disappear unless you produce some genuine objections.


 * Asking people who are irrationally reacting to stop doing so is not an "attack".


 * Your sources are dubious, you point to another wiki, it's hardly anything conclusive except what you could have posted yourself, which makes what you posted original research which violated Wikipedia policy on no original research. You don't cite sources for this so called "new party." Again, another wiki isn't acceptable.


 * It is widely believed that these internal conflicts, which cost the party candidates as well as internal officers, will prevent it from repeating its 2004 performance of fielding 308 candidates. A particular area of weakness is Atlantic Canada where there are few qualified organizers and most are declared in some way or other against the current central party council. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 4 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

1993 Green Party of Ontario convention
Hello,

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

1996 best riding?
The Green Party won no seats in 1996. Maybe we should mention the top 3 ridings where they came closest to winning, just to show where their best potential seats would be in the future. Were they even 2nd place in any riding? Does anybody have the data?--Sonjaaa 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, there was no federal election in 1996. Were you thinking of 1997, or a provincial election. Results for the federal election of 1997 can be found here. Also available are preliminary results for the 2006 election. Mind  matrix  16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal above that information on the Green Party's best electoral results (by riding) be included in this article -- I think top three or anywhere else that they might have done exceptionally well. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the Party actually polled second in a recent by-election, beating the Conservatives and the NDP. This should definitely be included somewhere. -- Todeswalzer | Talk 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Green-off 2006: Which Green is the Green for the Greens?
Help me change the official Wikipedia Canadian Green Party colour to my favorite! The current radioactive sewage choice also has detriment of being the NDP's secondary colour. The current party colour, used in templates and the such, can be seen at Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green --Colle 05:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Five reasons The Tom 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC):


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

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

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed for the following reason:


 * No references Tarret 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice of you to give your reasons. Ardenn 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Progressive/regressive taxation
In repsonse tot he request for comment, a green tax shift is not a priori regressive. It depends on the design. If, for example, higher taxes on polluting activities are used to pay for income tax reductions/refundable tax credits for low-income people, a green tax shift could be designed to be as progressive or more progressive than the current tax system. On the other hand, if higher taxes are levied on polluting activities in order to pay for lower income taxes across the board, a green tax shift could reduce the progressivity of the tax system. Ground Zero | t 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a message board. Ardenn 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero was responding to a request for comment at the Canadian notice board which asked "is the 'Green Tax Shift a regressive tax?" So the post seems appropriate in that context.  --JGGardiner 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see that. Thanks. Ardenn 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

eco-capitalism
How many of the following policies mentioned in the eco-capitalism article were in the last two GPC election platforms - I recall GPI, full cost accounting, green tax shift, emissions training amongst other:
 * Eco-capitalist monetary and administrative reforms
 * Genuine Progress Indicators as basis of monetary reform
 * full cost accounting for ecological harms done by subsidies
 * eliminating pollution credit to given non-polluting businesses a chance

[edit]
 * Taxation
 * Green tax shift

[edit]
 * Examples of eco-friendly business models
 * Emissions trading

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

Homey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ericbwalton 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ericbwalton 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

Adrianne Carr as the new green party head?
I heard this on the news this morning, November 21st, 2006, and I was wondering if anyone else had heard.
 * No, she is now one of two deputy leaders that May has appointed. The other is some guy from Quebec. Ground Zero | t 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New subheading for November 27th byelection?
Since Elizabeth May received 27.9% of the vote (the largest ever I beleive), should we make a seperate section for this vote, including a small run-down of this election? I'm from the area and there has been a lot of news coverage on this, I'm sure we could make a decent section from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.133.158 (talk • contribs)

First sentence?
It is unaccpetable that this article goes 18 paragraphs in before there is any explanation whatsoever of the actual political stance of this party. The articles for the other Canadian parties provide some discussion of party politics within the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.197.79 (talk • contribs)
 * Then why don't you add something? GreenJoe 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't know anything about the Green Party's policy. That's why I came to this article in the first place. It seems to be the most elusive thing in the world, like chasing a white unicorn. It it free-market libertarian with a enivronment caucus, or ultra leftist with a fiscal conservative faction? Who knows the answer?
 * For now, feel free to read up on the Green Party's website. Hopefully, your question will prompt some Green contributor on this site to do a summary of their platform here. —Cuivi é nen 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Mocko13 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

GA stuff

 * First mention of Harris (Party Leader) too brief. Unaware reader is confused by it


 * More wiki-links essential for FA status, many more potentials found in this article


 * Shifting political positions... needs references, newspaper article?


 * Please reference statistics, especially in an introduction


 * If it sounds like an opinion, reference it or lose it

Green Party policy writers have challenged this interpretation by claiming that any unintended regressive tax consequences would be fully offset by changes in tax rates and categories as well as an "eco-tax" refund for those who pay no tax. (Are these claims made in the stated 2006 party policy document? Though we know where to find details of the eco-tax, etc, the "challenged this interpretation" really needs to be attributed to a newspaper article)
 * The following are much more specific comments:

Many Greens also claim that this... (attribution needed)

Still, the party was somewhat embarrassed in 2004 because they all had to pull down there pants and show there private parts and to find Greenpeace and the Sierra Club of Canada ranking its environmental platform slightly below that of the NDP (a fact the NDP made much of in some closely-contested ridings in an attempt to encourage Greens and other environmentalists to vote for them strategically). The 2005/06 Green Party platform once again received the highest environmental marks of any federal party. (One source attribution right at the end, highest environmental marks according to who? and preferably a newspaper article to reference their embarassment, especially as you use the word "somewhat" which is considerably vague))

Previous leader Jim Harris was first elected to the office with over 80% of the vote and the support of the leaders of all of the provincial level Green parties. He was re-elected on the first ballot by 56% of the membership in a leadership challenge vote in August 2004. Tom Manley placed second with over 30% of the vote. (statistics like this need referencing to source)

Under the title "Federal election results (1984-2006)" - if all this info has come from the same place, put a simple source reference next to the title perhaps, Otherwise lots more statistics in this section that need referencing, In this case it might be wiser to put the inline citations next to the subheadings

Harris was often criticized harshly within the party (reference this)

The Green Party was the first Canadian political party on the Internet, with almost full party contacts across Canada for provincial and federal through e-mail and FidoNet back in the late 1980s. (I might be missing something, but this sentence doesn't make sense, perhaps "purposes" should be slotted in after "federal", or at least some other noun.

Living Platform went down for days and returned with every single web address changed. It never recovered, though it is still visible. (Fill in the missing citation if you think one is neccessary here, though it is perhaps one of the places I wouldn't have expected a citation)

This change to the constitution was discussed at a duly constituted GPC General Meeting and was passed by a very large majority. (citation please)

The Rank a Plank page has not been created, therefore a very brief description as to what this is about should be included as the reader will find this intriguing (I did)

The party was not registered with Elections Canada, did not run candidates in the 2006 federal election, and may in fact be defunct. (confirm or deleted the fact about being "defunct")

It may be wise to move the par "Although the party did not win a seat in the 2004 election" to the top of the section so readers are less intimidated by the tables. Please also refer to the general archived peer review for more details on how this article could be improved

''This article has failed twice, I do not want to fail it again but I feel it is still lacking. It's unfortunately like a driving test where you have to rely on instructor bias to get you through the test. I won't deny I have a strong bias towards referencing, but as pointed out in the peer review, put a citation into every section, if not every par. My above examples do not all need to be completed to upgrade to GA but a substantial part of them do. This could be done in the time it takes before I have to take the Hold status away therefore I have chosen not to fail it.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglike (talk • contribs)
 * What is Rank a Plank? I wanted to work on it, but don't know enough to notice what is in there. I worked on all of this I believe. If you could have another look, I know I am missing a few things, I want to make sure they're within my scope. Also, which words should be wikified? GreenJoe 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about the wikilinks just yet, they are more a thing to get to FA status (according to criteria). I have no clue what Rank a Plank is, if I did I wouldn't have asked for an explanation :P I think it is useful to have in there but it just needs an internet search to find out and give a brief description of what it is, or better, a whole page dedicated to Rank a Plank meaning that you can just leave it as a wikilink in this article. I hope that makes sense. At this point, focus on finding a reference for all those statistics in there. Douglike 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've now cited all of the stats. GreenJoe 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look carefully at the section Federal election results (1984-2006), a whole section of stats unreferenced. If there is one reference point for this whole section it would probably be wise to put that next to the section title. Much better intro though Douglike 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "The direction of the 2004 platform, while retaining similar ecological themes as before, was perceived" (By who was it perceived? simple citation to appropriate critic will do i think)
 * I removed the stats, because there is no central source. I'd leave it to the original contributor to re-add with citations. (I didn't put that in originally.) I re-worded the 2004 platform sentence. GreenJoe 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed a few points of grammar and expanded the initial reference to Jim Harris to make it clear who he is. The following need citations before GA status

I hope that makes it easier Douglike 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many Greens also claim that this traditional left-right political spectrum analysis does not accurately capture the pragmatic ecological orientation of an evolving Green Party.
 * Crookes' influence is one of the main dividing factors factions cite in their complaints about Harris and his allies, who were perceived often as doing his will. (need a citation to verify someone complained)
 * These innovations were wholly abandoned on February 9, 2005, just after a harshly worded memo from Crookes in which he claimed that "dysfunctional" elements of the party were "driving out the talented". Living Platform went down for days and returned with every single web address changed. It never recovered, though it is still visible.[citation needed] (it is already labelled as such)
 * Should be fixed up. GreenJoe 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Working on FA status
So who is ready to help take this article to FA status? GreenJoe 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think removal of the red links and adding of inline citations would help. DrKiernan (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Green Party of Canada
For anyone who cares, I've put a few tags on this article. It desperately needs some work, and I'm not qualified to do it. GreenJoe 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

History
Most other party articles have longer history sections - most of the stuff on the history page could come over here. On the other hand, some editors seem to want to keep it short-if that's the case that's fine, but in that case it still needs to be changed to include the most relevant info-so stop reverting improvements.Nick.annejohn 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Practicality
I believe a detailed look into the practicality of a party with only position is necessary for this article. One must instantly be concerned that a party with such a limited platform would not be able to participate in political decisions on a broader scale. As an example, it would be very difficult for the Green Party to debate the issue of reinstating capital punishment as their only focus is the environment. I would suggest that this should be stated as a likely reason for their lack of support and absence in Parliament. Now I know that might be biased, but a serious look at one dimensional political parties would be useful. Dale-DCX 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the information in the article must be verifiable and not our own original ideas. If you have some sources which discuss the Party's lack of support on that basis, it may be worth bringing up here.  But we can't otherwise include.


 * What I think that you will likely find is a lack of public awareness about the Party's policies rather than a lack of policies per se. The Green Party would undoubtedly find cohesion on fewer issues than other parties but they all break down in various areas.  But I think that it is probably correct that some Canadians won’t support perceived “single-issue” parties.  --JGGardiner 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we would have to find a source for the issue, though I believe it would be worth doing. I definitely imagine that Canadians are worried about voting for the Green Party as they do not seem to have a broad platform. Perhaps if not a criticism in this article, a section detailing the party's non-green agenda as well as a mention of Canadians being apprehensive about voting for the party. I am sure we can find a source for that at least. Dale-DCX 18:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone here actually involved with the Green Party on this forum or are you all members of other parties. I am a member of the Green Party, and I'm currently serving on the Federal council. The Green Party recently released a platform the covers every issue from Forestry to Open source computer software. For people who have displayed such a lack of knowledge, I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia lets just anybody edit the pages. I frequently have to justify edits to the page because people who (usually) know little about the party decide to delete the content. Political junky 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dale-DCX have you read over the Green Party platform? Apparently not as the Green Party openly condemns Harpers stance on the death penalty as they oppose murder, even if it is state-sanctioned murder. Further proof that not many of you actually understand what your talking about. Political junky —Preceding comment was added at 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the Green Party's platform and the issues it covers. My point was simply the party's primary focus and entire reason for existing, is to preserve and restore the environment. Parties with a single platform can and must (if they did not, they would be useless) deal with the other issues of politics, though they are primarily focused on a single issue. In fact, all of their policies stem from this basic ideal. The Green Party's opposition of capital punishment and inter-state violence stems from their stance on the environment. Why is capital punishment bad? Because it harms people as forms of nature. Why is war bad? Because it requires increased industrial production and can devastate the environment. The former does indeed make sense. The later however, is rather convuluted. I find the Green Party's platform to indeed be hobbled together to legitimize themself. I find green issues to be extremely important and I believe in the necessity of environmental preservation parties. However, as a serious party, the Green Party is not. If there were no environmental issues, the party would not exist. Unlike the idealogical parties, who must exist, regardless of the world circumstances. Specifically in Canada, a single focus party does not work because the electoral system is not proportional to votes. In many European countries, a Green Party is a far more logical choice to vote for, because they actually stand a chance of being elected due to their electoral system. Not that the Green Party in Canada stands no chance, just a very small one. My main point, above any issues with their overall platform though, is that the Green Party as (primarily and perceivedly) a single issue party is not particularly attractive to Canadians. It simply is not practical enough. Dale-DCX (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is disappointing to see the further perpetuation of the false idea that Green parties are only about the environment. Please refer to the Global Greens Charter which outlines six core principles Green parties around the world have signed on to, only one of which is focused on the environment (that being “ecological wisdom”; the “sustainability” principle refers to all three components of the triple-bottom-line: economy, environment, society). Yes, the Greens started out as an eco-focused party, but that expanded as work was done to build the parties. Yes, environment remains a top issue for the parties, but that is because it is a top issue for the world.
 * Personally, in my own work with the party over the past few years, I haven’t worked on any environmental issues (with the exception of one media interview about climate change). I’ve worked on information and policy for social programs (especially seniors and affordable housing), democratic reform and aboriginal rights.
 * Please re-evaluate your outmoded perspective of assuming that the Green Party is today what it was twenty years ago. Sticking to the past may apply to the traditional political parties, but the Greens are still a party that does change and grow. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Provincial election results
I removed, and will remove this from the article, because while they may be closely associated or what not, they're not the GPC. I'm happy that you're on the federal council, but Wikipedia isn't a propaganda machine. J 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not propaganda, its fact. The provincial counterparts are just as much a part of the GPC as the federal council (which is very much.) I don't think you realize how closely affiliated These two political divisions work together. I'm just as stubborn as you are, and I have much more experience (I know what I'm talking about.) On this topic anyway... Political junky 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, but those results belong in the articles about the parties themselves, not here. J 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres no reason why they shouldn't be on this article. I hate to repeat myself, but again these provincial counterparts work so closely with the party they most certainly belong in the federal party article. 74.14.128.26 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Cite sources. What you have right now is original research. J 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well firstly you can visit the Green parties website where you can view press archives (that I'm not going to waste my time sorting through, if you want to see, do it on your time) that feature various provincial Green Parties, there electoral successes and policy ideas. Unfortunatly I can't talk about the PD part of the relationship that would really prove my point. However it'd violate the confidentiality form that I'm not going to disobey to prove my point. I don't see why this is so important to you. I was the one who spent an hour putting the chart together and it (again) deserves to be on the page. I'd hate to see that time spent go to waste because something that was made to help people reading the article better understand be wasted by you just because of your opinion (which I will argue against) In this matter anyway... -- 74.14.128.26 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

J, The sources, I would consider the internal links. If you click on them you can read about the elections, and the leaders. Most of which are heavily involved with the GPC like Sharon Labchuk who I talk to frequently and George Read, Alberta Organizer. I'm removing the notice for now. 74.14.128.26 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's vandalism. Your material is original research and the onus is on you to cite sources. Failure to do so under policy can be its removal. J (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not original research if I know what I'm talking about. Do you live in Canada J? Are you even a member of the Green Party of Canada? I'm putting it up until you give me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be up. Its vandalism to remove important content and its so sad how much time you seem to waste trying to remove important content when there are other people editing who don't even know what there talking about. J, there are other sections of the article that also doesn't give any sources. there are many articles who also don't give sources. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE ONE REASON because its confidential and go to green.ca and you'll find any info you want. ITS A SOURCE. I will report you if it comes to that, because this is just to sad to deal by myself here. 74.14.128.26 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will have you blocked for violating 3RR. I do live in Canada. Please don't resort to personal attacks. See WP:WAX. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, and if you can't do that, it doesn't belong in the article. J (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in Canada, but I once lived in a border area where most of our radio and TV came from Canada, so I know a little bit about the relationship between provincial and federal political parties. It appears to me that the Green Parties in the provinces are not part of the Green Party of Canada (for example, http://www.gpo.ca/about_us/home says "The Green Party of Ontario is independent yet is philosophically aligned with other green parties in Canada and around the world"), so provincial party election results should not be represented as election results for the Green Party of Canada. It would be sensible for this Green Party of Canada article to include some discussion of the federal party's relationship to the provincial parties and how the provincial parties have fared in elections. However, anything that is said about the relationship of the federal and provincial parties must be supported by cited sources in accordance with WP:Verifiability. As GreenJoe says, that policy is not negotiable. --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The provincial “counterparts” are not part of the GPC. The Federal Council is a component of the GPC, the provincial parties are legally — and organizationally — separate entities. While there is overlap between some (perhaps many) of the folks involved in the provincial Green parties and the federal party in Canada, that does not make them the same organizations. Information about the provincial parties belongs on their separate articles. This article is strictly about the “Green Party of Canada”, not “green parties in Canada”. (fyi, I am past-president of a provincial Green Party, a past-candidate, and have worked on Green election campaigns federally and in three provinces — so am not entirely uninformed in this regard) —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)