Talk:Liberal Party of Canada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reversion

A number of recent edits were recently reverted by Moxy with the edit summary Restore Article 2 before Mass change reinstate links to make it easier for our readers to verify the information WP:GBOOKS. I couldn't see what possible application WP:GBOOKS could have here, so I restored the edits and was reverted again with the edit summary Restore again..... bring shut changes to talk. Could you please clarify what relevance WP:GBOOKS has here, Moxy? I don't understand the reversions. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The bigger question is why are you removed only certain sources from the info box. Those familiar with the article realize that this is a point of contention and is why they are there. This is also a pattern we've seen in the past leading to a change because of no verification. Needless to say it's not a good thing for our readers..... nor are we looking for a reference style change. After being reverted by multiple editors you should assume there's a problem with the edit .Moxy- 02:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Moxy: What change was there in reference style? And what does this have to do with WP:GBOOKS?

The only references removed from the infobox were of information that was explicitly referenced in the lead. As noted in my edit summary, this was pursuant to WP:INFOBOXREF which states:

References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere ... If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.

The sources used in the lead are nearly identical to those used in the infobox, as is the phrase they are being used to support, namely:

The party ... generally sits at the centre to centre-left of the Canadian political spectrum, with their rival the Conservative Party positioned to the right and the New Democratic Party, who at times aligned itself with the Liberals during minority governments, positioned to their left.

Why would WP:INFOBOXREF not apply here?

After being reverted by multiple editors you should assume there's a problem with the edit. You're the only editor who made a related reversion. Mcnasty1point0 made a narrow reversion of a change to the headquarters field of the infobox. It was in no way related to your blanket reversion, as best as I can tell. Of what relevance is that here? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm perplexed as to what exactly you're trying to do, concerning Canadian political parties. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to clarify the rationale behind any of my edits to this article, if the edit summaries were insufficient. Did you have particular concerns with respect to my edits to this article? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

From where I see it, you're messing articles up. Concerns about what you're trying to do, have already been brought up at WP:CANADA. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll be sure to reply there, in that case. With respect to this article, do you take issue with any edits I have made? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I take issue with you reverting, after your edits have been rejected. You want to make changes to an article? Get a consensus for it at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The edits are net negative for our readers. They make our readers have to search for sources in the article. Our goal is to be able to allow easy access to information..... for the purpose of verification and research. also would be best not to have multiple reference Styles confusing our readers even more. When editing think of what's best for our readership over blindly following rules. Although basically cosmetic edits.... they impede access to information for our readership. You're free to ask others if they believe we should make people hunt for sources and have multiple reference styles in one article. The Canadian convention has always been to Source material where it is if it may be a point of contention.Moxy- 02:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The edits are net negative for our readers. They make our readers have to search for sources in the article. How do you reconcile this position with WP:INFOBOXREF?

The Canadian convention has always been to Source material where it is if it may be a point of contention. I can point to numerous articles about Canadian subjects where that is not done. But in any case, we have to respect WP:LOCALCONSENSUS:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

The community's existing consensus is codified in WP:INFOBOXREF. If this is an exceptional circumstance not contemplated by the MOS, what makes it so?

also would be best not to have multiple reference Styles confusing our readers even more. I have no idea as to what you are referring here. Could you please clarify? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF(?)......"References are acceptable in some cases". ...MOS:CITELEAD(?)..."The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.". ..WP:WHENNOTCITE(?)... "controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead". ..WP:INTEGRITY(?)...."When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed.". ...WP:CITESHORT(?)...."Short citations can be written manually, or by using either the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates or the {{r}} referencing template. (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)"...Wikipedia:Purpose (essay)..."Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia;" - Lets do our best to allow readers to access sources with ease.Moxy- 06:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Adding $10 a day childcare to list of policies

I think it is worth discussing adding $10 a day child care to the notable list of policies that the Liberals have brought in. While it might not see as notable right now, it is arguably a transformational policy in this country and most certainly fits in with the other notable policies listed. $10 a day child care helps with the bottom line of Canadians, helps get women - and especially young women - into the workforce, etc.

That’s a notable policy & deserves a discussion as to whether or not it should be added to the list of notable policies brought in by the Liberal Party. Mcnasty1point0 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we note "with confidence and supply" in the election table?

OK, it's been requested this be discussed, so let's discuss it. I agree that the "with NDP confidence and supply" note should be added to the Liberals' 2021 election result. A minority may be a minority, but a confidence and supply deal makes it a decidedly different type of minority, since it means the party isn't governing on a bill-to-bill basis as minorities usually operate. As far as I can see, this is common practice across Wikipedia; for instance; the BC NDP's 2017 result has this, as does the UK Conservatives' 2017 result. What are the arguments against? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• The two most relevant Canadian examples I can find are the BC NDP's 2017 result, the Ontario Liberals 1985 result and the New Brunswick PC 2018 result. In the case of the NB PC Party, no confidence and supply note is listed, whereas the BC NDP and Ontario Liberals both contain some sort of note. The main difference seems to be that both the BC NDP and Ontario Liberals came 2nd in the seat count of their respective elections, whereas the NB PC's came first. If looking for some kind of standard, that may be it. The confidence and supply agreement had no bearing on the status of the parliament, as the Liberals have been governing with a minority for 6 months prior to the agreement, their status as a minority government was not contingent on an agreement, whereas the BC NDP example and Ontario Liberal example both were. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The NB PC Party is an edge case at best, since the agreement they struck was informal, unsigned and not subject to conditions in the way a C&S deal generally is. Per 2018 New Brunswick general election#Aftermath, Austin agreed to support to a Progressive Conservative government for 18 months, though no formal agreement was made; the source goes into it further. IMO that's not any different than a normal minority situation of horsetrading and bill-by-bill agreements. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Further research, the Yukon Liberal Party 2021 result, they were the incumbent government and tied for most seats, after forming government they entered into a confidence and supply agreement with the Yukon NDP. 2021 Yukon general election: On April 23, the incumbent Liberals were sworn in as a minority government. On April 28, the NDP announced that they had entered into a formal confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals. If a consistent standard is sought, the standard seems to be that when a minority government is not contingent on a supply and confidence, it isn't listed. Whereas, if the status of a government is contingent on a confidence and supply agreement, it is listed.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that when a minority government is not contingent on a supply and confidence, it isn't listed. Whereas, if the status of a government is contingent on a confidence and supply agreement, it is listed. Mcnasty1point0 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Liberals' signature policies

Starting a discussion to reach a consensus on changes to the intro section. I'm in favour of removing the following note "The Liberals being in a minority government situation from 1963 to 1968 forced them to collaborate with the New Democratic Party (NDP). Together, the Liberals and NDP created these three progressive policies." First off, as there is no source to state the extent of collaboration with the NDP, it's inclusion is dubious at best. In the section of the article referencing this, there is no mention of collaboration with the NDP. Secondly, this note seems somewhat out of place in the intro of an article, if there are sources supporting the statement, it's inclusion would be better suited to the section describing the topic. Third, the way the note is written has a hint of bias to it.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's been two weeks since the passage in question was first removed, then reverted to seek consensus first; in that time, only two others (myself included) have chimed in, both agreeing with the removal. I'm not going to say that three people (counting the IP editor) make for a strong consensus, but that there have been so few participants in the first place suggests this is not so contentious an edit as to require one. So I'm going to go ahead and remove the note. If anyone disagrees, they're free to discuss it here, but I don't see a need to keep this pending. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"Pierre Trudeau stated that his Liberal Party adhered to the radical centre"

I propose removing this line on the second paragraph. I do think it's a bit inaccurate, considering under Trudeau, the Liberal Party shifted to the left due to his personal socialist beliefs (he aligned himself with the NDP after all), his government's nationalization of the oil sector, and his big government economic policy in general (e.g. wage and price controls). These things are definitely not centrist. Secondly, it says "his Liberal Party", which places importance on only one Liberal leader.

Obviously, the definition of centrism varies from country to country. Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Change our ideology in Infobox.

• Liberalism (Canada)
• Social liberalism
• Progressivism

Canada's LDC is not much different economically from South Korea's DPK, Japan's CDPJ and socially, it is much more left-wing than or U.S. Democratic Party.

If DPK or CDPJ are also "progressive", I think it is very biased that LPC is not "progressive". In particular, I understand that Justin Trudeau is a social progressive, and there is no disagreement within Canada. The social position of all liberals in South Korea and Japan is similar to or more conservative than those in the Conservative Party of Canada. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Your own analysis and opinions are irrelevant, content on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, elements in the infobox reflect the content in the article body. Suggest context in the article body first. "Progressivism" is a broad label, that is perhaps why it has yet to be added to the infobox by other editors. You seem to have a very specific idea of what "progressivism" means, but that may be specific to your country or region, since you keep referencing countries that are not Canada. Yue🌙 00:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Political position: "Centre" or "Centre to Centre-Left"

In the interest of avoiding a further edit war, not sure why this wasn't done earlier, beginning a new section to help form a consensus as to the political position.

Prior to recent edits, this article listed the subject as Centre to Centre-Left, with corresponding sources:

• David Rayside (2011). Faith, Politics, and Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States. UBC Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-7748-2011-0.
• Richard Collin; Pamela L. Martin (2012). An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-4422-1803-1.

Additionally, a cursory search of the subjects political position lists sources that describe it as being both a centrist party and as a centre-left party. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The party is not centre-left and most certainly not centre. for example look at its position on social issues: abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, vaccine mandates, guns, ect. Particularly on guns annd Euthanasia, the are to the left of US dems. They are not fiscally moderate either: taxpayers have to pay for abortion/euthenasia, universal healthcare and college taxpayer funded, support for high tax rates. Also what they did during the trucker protests was far-left and authoritarian. they should be considered “left-wing” to “far-left” Cannolorosa (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

[They] are to the left of US dems United States politics is not some universal barometer against which all parties must be judged. Countries have their own context and spectrums. To pick out two of your examples of leftist policy: same-sex marriage has been supported across the Canadian spectrum for, oh, nearly twenty years, while support for abortion goes back thirty. Support for these issues does not mark anyone as a leftist in Canada, it marks them as normal. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah but are we talking about Canada statdards or world standards? Cannolorosa (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we use Canadian standards? — Kawnhr (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense if we use the same standard across the globe for consistency. Would anyone really disagree the the LPC is basically a copy of US dems(maybe even futher to the left). But i just think for the sale of consistency a global standard should be used Cannolorosa (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Basic information for people new to the topic Moxy🍁 15:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia has never used a global standard for plotting party positions, and I don't think we're about to start. There's two big problems with it. First is that constructing a worldwide standard is difficult, because different countries are going to have different ideas of what constitutes "left" and "right" policies. Second is that, on a spectrum that ranges from, say, Cuba to Saudi Arabia, any individual country's actual active politics will only occupy a small band of that. That is, if we say that the Liberal Party of Canada is "globally" left-wing because it supports same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, state-run healthcare… then the Conservative Party of Canada is also left-wing, as they also support all of that (not to the same degree, but if we're looking at this huge spectrum, there isn't going to be much daylight between them). And if we now say that Canada's political system is fought between three left-wing parties, this is both at odds with how this is actually perceived, reported and written about in the country, but also unhelpful to any reader. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

then why is the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] called far left on its page? by that standard wouldn’t it be centrist? Cannolorosa (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you can find credible, reliable sources saying that, sure, because Wikipedia exists to be a reflection of the sources. But it's about as asinine as Pierre Poilievre saying that the Nazis were left-wing and I guarantee you wont find anything of the sort. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Cannolorosa I hope your comment is as unserious as it comes across as. You'll need a significant amount of reliable sources to support your assertion that the LPC is "Left-to-far-left." ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By that metric, than the Democrats could just as easily be considered a centre-right to right wing party. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm no Liberal granted; however, I would argue that there is a substantial centre-right tradition with the modern Liberal Party of Canada that has been at the very least as influential as the centre-left tradition. In addition, I and many others, have found it very difficult to label many of Trudeau's policies (increasing the Conservative child tax benefit instead of just subsidising childcare spaces, the so-called middle class tax cut whose primary recipients do not fit most definitions of "middle class," or continued subsidies for the Tar Sands and ignoring the issue of tax avoidance) very "left-leaning".

This is also a party that introduced the largest cuts to the welfare state in Canadian history (even though they later increased healthcare funding) and later introduced the steepest corporate tax cuts in Canadian history (otherwise known as trickle-down economics). Might not "centrist but with centre-left and centre-right traditions or factions," be a wee bit more accurate? I think it's problematic to label the Liberals as a "left"-anything party. Remember, there are genuine progressives in the Liberal Party and particularly during minority parliaments, the Liberals have introduced progressive policies (old age pensions, Medicare, student loans, etc) but couldn't the same be said about the Progressive Conservative Party of yore (John Diefenbaker, Bill Davis, etc)? Were they "centre-left" too?

To reiterate, I believe that the Liberals would be better defined as either purely "centrist," or "centrist with internal centre-left and centre-right traditions, currents, factions, whatever".

Perhaps for the sake of simplicity "centre-right" to "centre-left" would be more accurate? It would capture the diversity of Liberal ideology throughout the late 20th and early 21st century.

Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Richard Oliver Collin; Pamela L. Martin (2012). An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-4422-1803-1......best to read about the basics.--Moxy (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Centre-Left makes the most sense.207.164.255.137 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think centre to centre-left is the best descriptor. Note that a party can still be considered centrist if it has a balance of right and left-leaning policies. It is pretty common knowledge that the Liberals campaign to the left and tend to govern to the centre, so I think that should be the basis for their classification here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the common saying is they campaign on the left and govern on the right. Historically, the Liberals are a centrist party, even if their current incarnation is more on the left. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Trudeau's liberals are more left-wing. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were centre-left.38.112.3.42 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing "left-wing" about the policies of Trudeau, i'd call him a centrist at best. Liberalism, unlike what some think, is not a left-wing ideology. Social democracy is to the left of liberalism and they can rarely get past centre-left! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

liberal party campaign left of center but govern from the centre. That said Canada is a centrist country....as far-right and to a lesser extent far-left politics have never been a prominent force in Canadian society......--Moxy (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe Trudeau is not a leftist. I've seen his policies and the stuff he says and he is definitely left of centre, so I absolutely will say his policies are centre left to left wing 188.31.232.135 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The Liberal Party of the 1960s-70s might might have been Center to Center-Left, but the modern Liberals are a Center-Right neo-liberal Party with really nothing about them that indicates they're left of center. I say call them "center", "center-right", "center to center-right", or even "center-left to center-right" but indicating that the party as a whole and especially its leadership to be left of center is false and misleading. The Liberals over the past few decades (at the very least the leadership of the party) have shifted away from social liberalism and Keynesianism into a more neo-liberal force, following the trend of most mainstream political parties around the world as Friedman's neo-liberal economics prevailed over the Keynesian consensus with the Thatcher-Reagan revolution of the 1980s. They have pursued some of the most brutal cuts to public services and willingly or enthusiastically privatized government services, while passing draconian legislation like Bill C-51, selling arms to Saudi Arabia, and spending public tax dollars on corporate subsidies. Left-Libertarian (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Great guess work.....but in fact radical Centrist is a term that has come back into use since Justin has taking over the party. Nowhere does anyone ever say center right.--Moxy (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The party is centre-right, they are adamant about upholding capitalism and pander to gain conservative voters. And yes they pander to the left too, but they are certainly radically centre and economically right,fake socially left. So I say centre-right. HoobaJooba3000 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Capitalism is the reason for climate change and the liberals have no plan to get rid of capitalism. They are right wing, might be considered left by brainwashed canadians but if they support capitalism and the imperialist expansion that happens because of it, they are certainly right wing. HoobaJooba3000 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Every party in Canada is right wing ffs. HoobaJooba3000 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Couuld not be more wrong....read a book....not social media.-}}", -Moxy- 23:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I am proposing that we distinguish between the historical and present political position of the Liberal Party of Canada. There seems to be a relatively broad consensus that the LPC historically has been positioned on the "centre" of the political spectrum at certain periods in its existence, however party's position has shifted to the "centre left" i during certain periods of time. I believe that the present and historical ideologies should be distinguished. The placement should be listed as

"Centre-left

Historically: Centre"

Humberland (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If so, the ideology within infobox should also be changed. Generally, social liberal parties are classified as "Centre to centre-left". However, the Liberal Party of Canada is culturally leftist than the general social liberal parties in South Korea, Japan, United States and Europe. It is very awkward if the party is a social liberal party and its political position is simply "Centre-left". So Progressivism must be added to infobox. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mureungdowon I believe your assessment is correct and "progressivism" would be appropriate to add. This ideology has been repeatedly attributed to the Liberal Party of Canada by many academic sources and is very often used by the party to describe itself. Seeking consensus on this. Humberland (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Progressivism is an utterly meaningless phrase in ideological terms; certainly when there are more precise definitions with clear references in this article. So I strongly oppose its use in the infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Centre to centre-left is still the best descriptor. There is not a broad consensus anywhere that the Liberal Party has shifted to an exclusively centre-left party, as even a cursory search still finds sourced that place the position as "centre to centre-left". Furthermore, Progressivism is an ideology, and should not be placed under political position. There is an existing discussion on the talk page about that addition.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Along with User:Autospark, I also oppose including "progressivism", an unnecessarily generic term, in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Distinguish the federal Liberal Party from provincial liberals

I think the Federal Liberals should be distinguished from the provincial liberals because:

1. News articles often refer to both provincial and federal Liberals as just "liberals."

2. There are many articles from reliable sources that distinguish provincial from federal liberal parties (in many cases in the first few paragraphs). In fact, some think the misconception is common enough to affect elections. The BC Liberals actually say they are not affiliated with any federal parties on their website. SentientObject (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a topic that can and should be further expanded, the proper place for it is under the Provincial parties heading of the article, where the distinction between the federal and provincial Liberal parties is briefly explained. There is opportunity to expand this section and give more information and clarification.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes are different from general clarification in article bodies. Adding this hatnote implies that there are similarly named parties that one can confuse with the Liberal Party of Canada, not that there are liberal parties in Canada unassociated with this federal party. That's like adding the same hatnote about conservative parties for Conservative Party of Canada to help clarify that none of the provincial conservative parties are officially linked to the federal party anymore. Should we also add a hatnote to the BC Liberal Party clarifying that it does not officially advocate liberalism, has a leadership consisting largely of federal Conservatives, and is unaffiliated with the federal Liberals? Hatnotes aren't for clarifying to uninformed readers that provincial liberal parties aren't associated with the federal Liberals, that's the job of the article body. Yue🌙 20:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If that's not the right template, would it be OK if I used the For template? The page of Template:Distinguish says, "For those cases where an explanation is required, please use the templates {{For}} and {{About}}." SentientObject (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And I do think that adding templates at the top of the articles of the parties you mentioned would help the average Wikipedia reader understand the topic better than a few sentences in the body. SentientObject (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yue🌙 20:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) SentientObject (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

References

NDP’s role in minority governments

I initially removed this, and it was reverted. I don’t want an edit war so, I will ask, how is this relevant to the liberal party page? I understand that they play a role in the confidence and supply of the liberal government but it seems to me that doesn’t need to be on the Liberal Party page. Wikentromere (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, could it be reworded in some way? It doesn’t fit in wells . Wikentromere (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Previously, I took that aside as a quick, implicit way of explaining the party standings and relative strength — that the Liberals ally with the NDP rather than the Conservatives tells you that the LPC and CPC are the two major parties — but on closer inspection, I suppose that calling the CPC their "rival" already does that. So, if it's not actually providing context, I don't think it's important enough for the lede. That the Liberals sometimes ally with the NDP is true but it's always (until very recently) been an informal partnership; mentioning it so prominently almost makes it sound like they've got some sort of CDU/CSU or Liberal/National agreement going on, which is obviously not the case. I'll go ahead and remove it. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding Social Democracy to Ideology

I think with recent decisions such as $10-a-day child care, the dental care program, and the framework for national pharmacare, we should heavily consider adding social democracy to its ideology. This is the party that brought national healthcare federally, and now under Justin Trudeau and it has moved even more left-wing compared to where it was before him being leader, I believe currently it’s aligning with social democracy more than Social Liberalism.

I know some people will argue that the dental care and pharmacare initiatives were only undertaken due to the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. However, the fact that Justin Trudeau was willing to work with the NDP demonstrates his left-wing stance, and he actually implemented the measures they requested in the agreement.

This party, which introduced national healthcare, $10-a-day child care, and legalized marijuana showing a trend towards drug liberalization, and is now also providing dental care for low-income Canadians and potentially pharmacare for contraceptives and diabetic medication. These actions illustrate that social democracy should be added to the party's ideology I believe this party under Justin Trudeau is as Left wing if not more than the Labour Party of the UK under Keir Starmer. I’m interested to hear other peoples opinions. Black roses124 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up your claims, or is this all your original research? "However, the fact that Justin Trudeau was willing to work with the NDP demonstrates his left-wing stance, " - No, it really doesn't. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sources that explicitly state the Liberal Party follows social democracy, I don't have many except for sort of this one: Fraser Institute article.

I disagree with the think tank’s conclusion of "modern-day socialist." I argue that Trudeau aligns more with social democracy; he has certainly governed as a social democrat, and I believe anyone with a basic understanding of social democracy would agree. The Liberal Party under Trudeau has undergone a clear identity shift. Policies such as the framework for national pharmacare and a dental care program for low-income Canadians indicate a social democratic approach, contrasting with the 1990s Liberal Party.

Lets not forget the Liberals historically is the party that introduced national healthcare a strong pillar of that ideology that all social democrats argue for, and under Trudeau, they have implemented $10 a day childcare and drug liberalization—key social democratic policies. In 2015, Tom Mulcair, a self-proclaimed social democrat, promised similar initiatives with 15$ a day childcare,  pharmacare, and marijuana decriminalization. Furthermore, Trudeau's supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, a first for a Liberal Prime Minister, shows a shift leftward, emphasizing his social democratic governance. He could have agreed to the deal without implementing the policies, but he has followed through on the items.

The Liberal Party is a big tent party with many views and factions. In the 1990s, the “Blue Grits” led the party, their ideology ranging from social liberalism to conservatism. Currently, it seems the “Red Grits” are governing the party, with their ideology leaning more towards social democracy I believe social democracy belongs in the ideology. Black roses124 (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fundamentally, this is not a matter of what our personal opinions are. Your arguments are fine for a forum discussion, but on Wikipedia we deal with reliable sources. This is because everything we write in an article must be verifiable. It is simply not verifiable to say that the Liberal Party as a whole, or even factionally is social democratic in any capacity. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Fraser Institute is also a biased source.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s true Fraser Institute is biased. Black roses124 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems very limiting to claim that a party can't align with certain political ideologies if no reliable sources state as such, even if it is objectively true. Hypothetically, if a centrist party moves far-right but there are no reliable sources stating this shift, it will still be considered centrist? This approach seems inadequate and restrictive for this specific discussion.

I do have this publication from Professor Kenneth Dewar https://activehistory.ca/papers/the-social-democracy-question/ which references a lecture by Ed Broadbent, a former leader of the NDP and a self-proclaimed social democrat with a Doctor of Philosophy degree in political science. The article discusses numerous expressions of social democracy across party lines in Canada. For example, John Diefenbaker introduced the national hospital insurance program, and subsequent Liberal governments introduced similar actions. Under Lester Pearson, universal healthcare, Medicare, and the Canada Pension Plan were introduced. Additionally, William Lyon Mackenzie King introduced unemployment insurance legislation, and Pierre Trudeau created the National Energy Program and Petro-Canada as a publicly owned petroleum utility. All these are examples of social democracy.

In recent years, Justin Trudeau has followed in this tradition with policies such as $10-a-day childcare, banning unpaid internships, introducing a federal Canada Disability Benefit, and establishing a framework for pharmacare with plans to cover diabetic medication and contraceptives. These actions suggest that the Liberal Party has continued to implement social democratic policies.

In conclusion, the Liberal Party has historically introduced numerous social democratic policies, including universal healthcare, the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, the National Energy Program, and creating Petro-Canada. Along with Justin Trudeau's recent social democratic policies, we can reasonably conclude that the Liberal Party's ideology includes elements of social democracy. Even if we exclude Justin Trudeau's contributions, the historic expressions of social democracy by Liberal prime ministers, as stated by Ed Broadbent, provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Additionally, the Australian Labor Party is often recognized as having a social democratic ideology, despite the lack of explicit labeling by some sources. This further illustrates that political ideologies can be inferred from policy actions and historical context. Black roses124 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Black Roses, the thing is, Wikipedia works on reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE) not original research (WP:OR). What you’ve cited is interesting, but it doesn’t directly say that the Liberal Party is social democratic. To add that to the infobox, we would need a reliable source to support it. That’s the nature of WP as an encyclopedia, to aggregate material from others. Reliable sources are particularly important for contentious issues, like articles on political parties. Otherwise, there would be unending edit wars, if the criteria were editors’ personal views. For example, if you check the history page for this article, there’s been a series of attempts to change the political summary of the Liberal party to “far left”. That’s also been rejected, because that editor didn’t bring any reliable sources in support of their position. Cites to reliable sources are needed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The source I provided quotes Ed Broadbent, who says that numerous policies enacted by Liberal prime ministers are social democratic. If a party is enacting social democratic policies and making formal agreements with a party that is explicitly socially democratic, one can reasonably infer that the party has at least some level of support for social democracy.

However, I'm willing to compromise. At the very least, can we include 'faction: social democracy'? I believe the current description is inaccurate and misleading by stating only 'Liberalism,' which suggests that the party has a single coherent ideology. When in reality, the party is multidimensional, encompassing a variety of political ideologies from conservatism to social democracy.

I am not arguing for 'democratic socialism' to be included in the infobox ideology. All in all I believe we should at least mention 'faction: social democracy.' While I think these rules are too restrictive and limiting, I respect Wikipedia's guidelines. If you decide that even including 'faction: social democracy' is too much, I will respect that decision and if this is it thank you to everyone participating in the discussion. Black roses124 (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, my belief is that even if the Liberal Party were to turn Canada into Sweden, we still wouldn't have any sources stating that the Liberal Party is social democratic. I really have been given an impossible task. Black roses124 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources available to say that the Liberals have a social democratic ideology, then by putting it in, we would simply be incorporating your personal opinion. That is not how Wikipedia works; it's not based on personal opinions of editors. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I don’t want to sound more repetitive than I already am, so it’s the end of this discussion. Black roses124 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/andrew_ajackson/pierre_trudeau_the_liberals_and_the_social_democratic_left

Does this count it talks about how Pierre Trudeau is essentially a democratic socialist 74.14.0.182 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant social Democrat 74.14.0.182 (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

How the term is used in a Canadian context. Moxy🍁 13:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)