Talk:New Democratic Party

Two major sources calling The NDP “A left wing party. https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2025/04/canada-left-ndp-poised-for-a-wipeout

@Adminhttps://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/new-democratic-party דולב חולב (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I would be apprehensive using the New Statesman as a source for the political compass position of Canadian parties as it's likely skewed by the deviant American Overton window. The Canadian Encyclopedia is a reliable WP:TERTIARY source. But one tertiary source calling the NDP left-wing would not supercede the other sources that call it center-left. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Why would a British publication be skewed by the American Overton window (which I agree has mutated beyond satire)? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between left-wing and centre-left and what information would it convey to readers by changing the desciption?

IMHO the party could be described as either, depending on what the writer meant. Obviously they are the most left-wing party in Parliament but are fairly centrist compared to most left-wing parties. TFD (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. And they're closer to the political centre than the Greens.

The question is: is the infobox describing their position on the global political spectrum (in which case I think they'd just be centre-left) or on the Canadian one (in which case I could sympathize with putting "left-wing" in the I-box). The first one makes a lot more sense to me, since we can't expect readers to understand where each country's political centre is at. (On the other hand, if we pursue the "global" scale for all countries, we'll have to describe the American Democrats as "centre-right to left-wing") Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you will find considerable disagreement at putting the NDP closer to the centre than the Greens. This has historically been very much not the case. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Several months ago there were lengthy discussions on whether to include the results of provincial New Democratic Party wings on the page of the national party. The conclusion was to exclude them on the basis of each wing already having their own page and supposedly it was mutually exclusive to have both. This claim was made on the basis that no countries that have it included in their national page also have separate pages for regional branches. Having done more research I have found that claim to be false. First example of a party that has both is the Labour Party (UK). As you can see on it's page it includes tables for subnational results for the party. Simultaneously each wing of the party has its own page Scottish Labour, London Labour, Welsh Labour. It is the same for the Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK). This is also true for political parties in the United States e.g. Michigan Democratic Party, in Germany (though most of the state pages only exist in German), and in Australia e.g. Australian Labor Party & New South Wales Labor Party. With this mountain of precedent and evidence, I believe there is no justification for this information to be excluded from the article, and should be added back immediately. (Also posted on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board). Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the UK, Australia, USA etc. We already have seperate provincial/territorial NDP pages, that handle such info. PS - Your same proposal would suggest adding Liberal provinicial/territorial wings to the Liberal Party of Canada, which is also opposed. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, when consensus was reached to exclude the provincial/territorial wings? It was done with full knowledge of how other countries handled their politicial party pages. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I would not mind restoring the standings table to #Provincial and territorial wings (for example, though I'd rather just the first table), but I still think it doesn't belong in the infobox. One: even though the NDP is "integrated", in practice they aren't — the provincial branches all operate completely independently from the federal branch. In contrast, Scottish Labour is responsible for candidate recruitment and campaigning even in Westminster elections — to the point that in 2017, the leader of Scottish Labour (Kezia Dugdale) resigned due to a poor result in that year's UK election. Two: likewise, the scope of this page is firmly on the federal branch; provincial history is mentioned in passing if at all. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says an infobox should summarize the key facts of the article, and so it is undue to put (aggregated) seat counts in the infobox when they are not discussed in the article. Three: the different relationships between federal/provincial parties is only understood to us poli-sci weirdos. The moment we put bar charts for provincial seats in this infobox, well-meaning editors will try to insert them into the infoboxes of the other parties, under the impression they're correcting an oversight. I foresee a lot of reverts for some very minor info. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that having the current standings of the provincial wings in the Provincial and territorial wings section would be the best compromise. Regional branches of the party have a party affect on the national wing, as they control memberships and local organizing. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. We already have provincinal/territorial parties pages to handle such info. Again, such proposals adopted would also change the Liberal Party of Canada page. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Kawnhr, your suggested compromise would only cause editors to attempt such changes to all federal parties pages. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The NDP is not like all other federal parties as it is the only one to continue being fully affiliated with all provincial branches. I also don't see a problem with a small seat table for the Liberal Party page including the provincial parties that are formally affiliated. As far as I'm aware, no other parties have official ties with provincial counterparts, so I don't think it would be an issue. It seems weird to me to hold to NDP to the same standard as other parties, when it does not operate the same as those other parties, and the page should reflect that. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The Liberal party does have affiliations with four (PEI, NB, NS, NL) provincial Liberal parties, fwiw. So again, what you're pushing 'here', you'd have to push at the federal Liberal Party page. Any such changes here & there, will encourage editors to make similiar changes to the other federal parties. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it will. "My" compromise is restoring a table that was already on the page in the past, and I don't remember having to constantly remove inapplicable tables from Conservative Party of Canada#Regional conservative parties at that time. Subsections generally attract fewer drive-by editors trying to right a wrong, probably because infoboxes are both one of the first things people see upon opening an article yet (by design) lack context. But "Provincial and territorial wings" provides its own context immediately (Unlike most other Canadian federal parties…), and I think we can assume that anybody who read far enough down the page to get to this section is able to understand that different situations mean different information.

Moreover, the three major parties are structured differently (NDP has integrated membership, Conservatives don't, Liberals have in some places but not others), so it's hardly bad practice for the articles reflect that. I would argue it's worse to force a consistency where it doesn't actually exist. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made my position on this matter 'clear'. Time for others' inpurt. Inviting @Bearcat, G. Timothy Walton, Moxy, and MediaKyle: to the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Some mention in the article that the branches in the provinces and Yukon are legally part of the federal party but functionally independent seems reasonable; the Liberals having four provincial branches should also be mentioned. It wouldn't belong in the infobox, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Weirdly, of the five parties in the Commons, the LPC is the only page that does have a subsection for its regional affiliates. Even the CPC and BQ have sections for this (which simply say they do not). Even if we don't add tables, the relationship between the federal Liberals and provincial Liberals does deserve clarification. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The LBC page used to have a section explaining it's relation with affiliated Provincial Liberal parties, and non-affiliated provincial "Liberal" parties. But this section was fully removed in April by @Moxy. Each party page should have a section that explains the party's relationship with provincial equivalents, with a table for current standing of affiliated parties. In the NDP this would mean a table for 10 parties, with an explanation for NWT QC and NU. For the Liberals it would mean having a table with 4 parties, and an explanation the others broke off formal relations. For the Conservatives, Greens and Bloc, it already says that the parties have strong informal ties with certain provincial parties, but no formal affiliation, and thus no current standings table (nothing would need to change for these parties). If we want to be impartial the pages have to reflect the fact that different parties operate differently. Even if enforcing a non-existent standard might be easier for us. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on Avi Lewis’s Wikipedia article, he is described as a “loud and proud eco-socialist” and a “self-declared democratic socialist.” Most people would consider that to be far-left, but accepted sources by Wikipedia are only quick to label parties far-right. This is a well known problem that Wikipedia has not yet addressed. At a minimum, it is absurd to continue with the NDP’s self-described center-left to left wing description. ~2026-26013-7 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

My goodness, he just became the leader. Give the poor fella some time. In any case, Wikipedia is deliberately behind the curve on such things. If the party shifts further to the left from here, that will be something we'll see reflected in the literature. MediaKyle (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he got elected at a conference where they had “equity cards” that allowed anyone that was not a “cis white male” to jump the speaking line. And that was not good enough for many that complained that their equity group should also be able to jump the line ahead of “cis white females.” This is not centrist behavior. ~2026-26013-7 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The speaking order of a conference has no bearing on the actual policies that a party officially adopts at a party convention. Additionally, just because a leadership candidate (or even the leader) has an opinion don't automatically make those opinions official party policy. For example, Jagmeet Singh was a self-described republican, but it doesn't make the NDP from 2017 to 2025 a republican organization, as the party never published a manifesto or platform suggesting they had a legislative goal to abolish the Canadian Monarchy. RedBlueGreen93 23:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

One leader does not a party's ideology make.-- Earl Andrew - talk 22:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Note to everyone that talk pages are not comment sections for debates. Bottom line, the relevant policy is WP:V; if several reliable sources begin to describe the party as far-left, then the inclusion of the label should be strongly considered. Otherwise, it's original research and should not be included. Yue🌙 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

As of today, Heather McPherson is now the house leader of the NDP, not Alex Boulerice, an important change as he has been house leader for a significant amount of time. Greenw.envy (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)