Talk:Progressive Senate Group

Should we update the group to be an unofficial group?
,, , , and , my fellow Canadian Wikipedians who frequently or occasionally (through AWB, principally) edit these Canadian political topics, with the latest defections of Senators Downe and Dagenais to the Canadian Senators Group, the Progressive Senate Group has lost official caucus standing (as noted in this article and elsewhere). Two more Senators will retire in January and February 2019, further cementing them into unofficial caucus standing. As such, they're no longer eligible, at least in the new fiscal year beginning April 1, 2020, and will be designated (by then, if not now), as non-affiliated Senators. They've got to find at least 3-4 new Senators in the next several months or they will be over before they began.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm currently adding a history section here. But, on the Senate of Canada page, we should probably add a note to say that the caucus is not recognized but still keep them since it does exist. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do the others think? I'm open to other suggestions. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I'm fine with leaving it until the Senate of Canada website is updated, since I think I've mentioned that in my footnote. Alternatively, if not, we could copy and paste my footnote that Kawnhr converted from a reference in Senate Liberal Caucus. Doug Mehus T · C  17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the website is updated actually. They did it fast. That's why I offered to put a note. Although, like I said I'm open to other options. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of the key reasons why I'm not sure a seating chart for the Senate is useful at all — everything's so in flux, with these ad hoc caucuses constantly growing and shrinking. There's no consistency, no stability, no standard colour associations...it's all just a big mess and I'm at a loss how to handle it. Granted they exist and the presence or lack of official status doesn't change that, so I certainly wouldn't propose deleting the article outright, but we certainly shouldn't be describing or categorizing any of these as political parties, because that's not what they are. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I wouldn't delete the article; I think we've established notability is here, but we should update, in-text, that they lost their official caucus status. We may need to revisit this article in another month or two to see whether they regain their status. I suspect some ISG Senators may move over; alternatively, there's a potential 5 new Senators to be appointed in the new year (10 by the end of next year). Agree on the seating chart, at least the one at Senate of Canada as the infobox ones are easy to update. We can take care of that quickly.--Doug Mehus T · C  17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , no wiki article calls them parties. They're all known as parliamentary groups/caucuses. I do think the seating chart is useful though. After all, things will likely stabilize. They were stable for quite some time until recently.
 * As for the consequences of Trudeau's appointment reform, we should probably add that as a subsection of the 2015 appointment reform on the Senate of Canada page. Every article mentions that its due to his reform that these new groups are appearing. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, and  are all being filed as subcategories of several political party categories, and in each case the head article is directly catted as "Political parties established in YYYY" and has Canada-party-stub on it. So it's clearly not true that we're not calling them political parties. We are, and that's incorrect. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I noticed that as well, but didn't know if I should create a "Parliamentary groups established in YYYY" cat. Do you think that would be worthwhile? Doug Mehus T · C  17:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it would. Just the existing "Organizations established in YYYY" tree should probably suffice. It's also likely worth discussing whether any of them actually warrant their own eponymous categories at all, because it's just going to lead to extreme category bloat every time a senator crosses the floor from one of these thingamabobs to another one. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , so we should probably keep them as parties then (for categories), while they don't whip, they kind of act like parties. I mean the GPC in the House doesn't whip either. The Senate has changed and we should reflect that in the articles. So, I honestly think we should keep the categories as they are. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's true, but it would make for an odd hierarchical arrangement since they're a strictly political grouping (one which doesn't contest elections). Perhaps merging "Political parties established in YYYY" could be worthwhile, but I suspect that'd be a larger discussion. Feel free to propose it at CfD, though. How many political parties are established by year, after all? Doug Mehus T · C  17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's WP:TOOSOON for them to all have eponymous categories right away, especially with the situation so in flux. Maybe in six months to a year we can revisit it if and when one or more relatively stable caucuses have emerged from the chaos, but if founding members of these things are already ping-ponging back and forth just four days in, the lists in the articles should really suffice for the time being rather than people having to be permanently filed in multiple subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are probably correct and we should wait for the categories. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , True, but what about the "Political parties established in YYYY, I thought you were going to rethink that and propose something there? Doug Mehus T · C '' 18:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the 2015 ones are already mentioned though. I'm talking about adding a sub-section to indicate the consequences of those reforms.
 * Nevermind, due to the source that is cited it seems that we are talking about the same stuff, since that's what the research is about (the consequences). I'll probably do it later. I'm technically still on wikibreak (will be done later today). MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikibreaks aren't hard and fast enforced, as I understand it, unless you mean it was "court ordered"? ;) Doug Mehus T · C  17:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, no. I just got a bit tired is all. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, concur on adding the 2015 reforms to Senate of Canada. Might also want to use this journal article for background and sourcing. It's an excellent source! Can use "cite journal" template, too! Doug Mehus T · C  17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about this. My view is that we should explicitly mention that they're unofficial, because that is manifestly the case now (they're all listed as non-affiliated on the Senate's site); but that they should still be listed as a caucus in standings, etc because they do still exist, as far we we know. It's like in the Commons, where the Greens are not officially recognized as a caucus but are still one in practical terms (admittedly it's not a 1:1 comparison because GPC membership is still recognized, but it's still a similar situation, I think.) — Kawnhr (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I think that's the best course of action (adding mentions on relevant pages to say they're unofficial/lack recognition. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I think following the Green party approach is a good one. If Elizabeth May and Paul Manly show up as "green" in the infobox, then we should keep their colour pips as burgundy, which added but the article should reflect the caucus unofficial standing. So much for the sleepy Senate!
 * I agree. The PSG and House Greens are both caucuses without official party status. The only difference is that the Greens have official recognition outside of Parliament via Elections Canada. Incidentally, the fact that PSG was removed from the Senate website proves that Official party status is wrong about senate caucuses keeping status after shrinking, right? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , so we should add notes to mention the lack of official party status on the Senate of Canada page and other pages but keep their seats colored? MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It looks like that page has the numbers correct for official party status. That said, there are unofficial groups in either chamber. I'd support keeping their caucus colour from Template:Canadian party colour, but I think they should be moved to a separate unofficial groupings table or something. I don't know how to handle it.
 * , It looks like that page has the numbers correct for official party status. That said, there are unofficial groups in either chamber. I'd support keeping their caucus colour from Template:Canadian party colour, but I think they should be moved to a separate unofficial groupings table or something. I don't know how to handle it.


 * Actually, I would keep their status as Non-affiliated in the Senate of Canada and the list of Canadian senators list page (can't remember the name of it), and actually remove the colour pips in those pages. However, don't remove the PSG colour grouping from the template—since it'll still be used on Progressive Senate Group, if that makes sense. Pinging since he or she updates these sort of things too and will need to be kept in the loop.Doug Mehus  T · C  18:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be content, with whatever yas can figure out. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the PSG continues to act like a caucus (e.g. releasing joint press releases on its website), I'm inclined to treat it the same way we treat the House Greens. That usually means treating it as a caucus, but with an asterisk beside its name or some other indication that it doesn't have official party status. That's what the House's website does with the Greens. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , True. Yeah, a footnote or a note in the right-most column of the applicable tables would work. However, I have a prediction to make, which is completely unscientific, and I suspect we'll see this group become defunct by January 2020. Remember, their members won't likely get any standing committee appointments—or at least not many—which reduces their overall pay packages, without any official party status. I suspect you'll see a further splintering into the CSG and the ISG, or yet another group will be formed, taking members from the CSG and ISG.Doug Mehus T · C  18:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would go with the note like User:Arctic.gnome said,since it's too soon to do otherwise. So, it seems we have a consensus (four of us).


 * By the way, you forgot to sign at times? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know I forgot my sig above, but was too busy discussing so just left it to SineBot (or whatever) to do in a batch run. For clarity, I am fine with either note: if a given table has a "notes" column, put the official party status lacking note there. If not, do one of those footnotes like you and Kawnhr added at Senate of Canada. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think that, for the time being, we should continue to include the PSG in lists, standings, etc. As far as I can tell they are still continuing to act as a caucus (their website is still up, anyway), so in practical terms they are a caucus even if they don't have the official recognition or bonuses that come with it (again, like the Greens). If the situation changes, then we can revisit this, but since the situation is so in flux and subject to change— what if a few ISG senators will join the PSG within the week, and bump it right back over the threshold?— I think it's better to err on the side of caution and continuity. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Interesting...yeah, it'll be worth looking into whether the Rules of the Senate changed when they, a couple years ago, amended the rules to allow non-electoral seeking parliamentary groups. Doug Mehus T · C  19:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * wrote: This may have changed, or perhaps was an incorrect reading of old Senate rules. Senators certainly used to be able to self-designate however they wanted, and were recognized as such by the Senate (eg: Elaine McCoy being a "Progressive Conservative" long after the party dissolved, and Lilian Dyck being a "New Democrat" even though the caucus refused to let her join). So it may not be wrong so much as outdated… but that would involve digging through old versions of Rules of the Senate to be sure, and oof, that doesn't sound like a fun time. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , tell me about it. I had to dig through the spending rules for the 2019 Canadian federal election since I realized the ones that we had were out of date. It was not fun. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: The Hill Times is characerizing the Progressive Senate Group has having "disbanded," citing an updated conversation with Senator Day. They're still going to "cooperate," but I'm having second thoughts about keeping this group's members aligned to this group's colours. I think we should code it as a defunct group, which we can always restart and remove the defunct date from the infobox if and when it becomes official again. We could update the Lede to say that the group has officially folded, disbanded, etc., but the group plans to collaboratively work together and publish joint news releases on the former group's website. We have a lot of leeway in how to handle this, per WP:IAR and common sense. To read the article, hold down Esc before the images on the page load to bypass the paywall. Doug Mehus T · C  20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It could just be The Hill Times wording it differently. Nevertheless, I've updated the Lede a bit to provide needed clarity and context. It had been truncated to a single sentence, which I thought was too short.
 * Hmm… I think The Hill Times basically confirms our initial read on the situation. While it says the PSG "has officially folded", it also goes on to say that . Day's quote is also very important: So: the PSG has ceased to have official recognition and status, but the senators themselves are apparently continuing to act in concert and aim to expand; to me, that says that they are still a group and caucus in practical terms; so I am inclined to think that the PSG ought to have recognition on lists etc for the time being. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, it's an uncharted situation. I'm fine with either way. I am happy now that we've documented in the Lede that they are an unofficial grouping.--Doug Mehus T · C  00:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I think we should keep things as is right now and wait and see. Like someone said earlier, it is possible an ISG crosses the floor (not even sure if that's even the correct term here). - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This aside in a recent CBC story caught my eye: : (emphasis mine). It seems like the CBC, at least, is still recognizing the PSG as a de facto caucus. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I'm fine with calling them a caucus and having an article. I also am fine with colour-coding them as such in various lists, so long as we note in the Lede and add footnotes that they don't have official status. They're set to lose ~$160,000 in taxpayer funding in 2020. If you're curious, the ISG received ~$1.6 million in funding, the CSG is applying to qualify for its ~$500,000, and the Conservatives reportedly took in about $900,000 for their Senate caucus operations.--Doug Mehus T · C  16:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Progressivism as an Ideology
Though not officially or explicitly stated on their website, or even in press coverage, I do get the thinking in editor adding Progressivism as a third ideology below the "Non-partisan" and "Technical group" ideologies. However, with everything in flux right now and very little beyond broad aims and ambitions, I'm wondering if it is appropriate? So, per WP:BRD, I've reverted the edit so we can discuss. If it is added, I think we add an explanatory footnote to a "noteslist." Similarly, if it is added, I think we should not be adding "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" to Canadian Senators Group as was discussed at Talk:Canadian Senators Group as they do have a mix of Senators of varying parties and ideologies.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  19:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In a press conference for the group's formation, Day said this about the name:
 * I think it's probably fair to include "progressivism", since the group was explicitly founded to be left-of-centre. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, but I still think we should have a footnote about this (which I can add later), and that it should be listed after the first two "ideologies". Doug Mehus T · C  20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, but I still think we should have a footnote about this (which I can add later), and that it should be listed after the first two "ideologies". Doug Mehus T · C  20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 18
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 18. This CfD which affects the Progressive Senate Group category Doug Mehus T · C  16:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)