Talk:Green Party of Canada/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reversion of May 25 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Mindmatrix 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1996 best riding? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  leadership challenge? 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed for the following reason:
:No references Tarret 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice of you to give your reasons. Ardenn 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a message board. Ardenn 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't see that. Thanks. Ardenn 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive/regressive taxation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  eco-capitalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  eco-capitalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adrianne Carr as the new green party head? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Cuiviénen 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: So who is ready to help take this article to FA status? GreenJoe 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think removal of the red links and adding of inline citations would help. DrKiernan (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on FA status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[History of the Green Party of Canada]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
replies: text: Great, but those results belong in the articles about the parties themselves, not here. J 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Prove it. Cite sources. What you have right now is original research. J 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Provincial election results