Talk:Politics of Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Realignment"[edit]

The subsection labeled "Realignment" is utterly inappropriate. It has nothing to do with the one single source for this section being "wrong," as User:Rjensen brings up. It is simply a matter of proportionality. There are hundreds of journal articles published every year, thousands of newspaper articles, and so on. It it just obviously inappropriate to pick one of these articles, decide you like its thesis, and stick it into a broad high-level overview article. Rjensen's preferred "realignment" section gives this one paper almost as much attention as the entire country's entire judicial system, for example. The Behiels paper asks whether the Conservatives are the new "natural governing party," using a stock phrase referring to the Liberals' longstanding dominance of federal politics, but that dominance is not even covered at all in the current Wiki article.

Of course there is room in the article for a discussion of historical, current, and prospective electoral prospects for all the various political factions. But that is very different from the present thinly sourced Conservative puffery. TiC (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TiC's last sentence says it all-he is really unhappy not with the Wiki article but with the recent trends in Canadian politics and that is the reason he does not want readers to learn about recent scholarship. He reveals his blatant POV and partisanship. (For the record I am not Canadian and have no stake in Canadian politics.) He says there are so many articles out there that none should be chosen--a strange and unhappy twist of the RS rule,. If he has RS that are important he should ADD them, rather than subtract what other Wiki editors (and journal editors) consider important scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from speculating about my motives, which are irrelevant in any case.
I do not have to re-write the entire article in great detail in order to achieve balance, just because another user wants to include a paper he likes. To say otherwise is silly.
I suggest that the "realignment" section be scaled down and merged into the "political conditions" section. Perhaps after "They gained 10 seats here, whereas in 2004 they had no seats" we can add, "Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper has described his long-term goal of displacing the Liberals as the natural governing party of the country, a political realignment that some observers see as successfully underway." That I think would be a reasonable compromise. But the subsection, especially with such an expansive choice of words, is clearly too much. TiC (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've noticed you have been editing elsewhere (including adding references to Behiels' paper to Stephen Harper and his own Wiki bio) so I assume you still think this is important, but you haven't addressed this any further. What do you think of merging the "realignment" subsection into "political conditions?" TiC (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political scientists have been using the concept of realignment for many decades, so it's not a weird or novel idea. It's mainstream scholarship looking at long-term (many years) trends, as opposed to journalism that looks at the last few months. So a subsection under "political conditions" works ok. Behiels is one of the most prominent political scholars in Canada, so his ideas as presented in a major scholarly journal are important to include. Reducing a complex argumkent to the trivial "some observers see as successfully underway" degrades the information available.Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of political realignment in a general sense is not at issue here. Behiels is reasonably prominent although I'm unsure that American Review of Canadian Studies is a "major" journal. In any case, even if both of those assertions are true and verifiable, it is obvious that there are a great many articles written by prominent political scholars and published in major scholarly journals; you still haven't explained clearly why this particular article should be used, other than personal preference.
Also, since this thesis seems to be Behiels's, I'm a little confused by why the summary says 'many journalists, political advisors, and politicians argue' for it. Is that actually documented in the source, or are those just unsupported attributions meant to promote a particular conclusion? They sure sound like it.
Just to make my main point clear once again: highlighting this particular paper with such prominent positioning and effusive language, in the context of a high-level summary covering the entire topic "Politics of Canada," is effectively non-NPOV because it imputes undue importance to a particular view. Not incidentally, this is exactly what the editors at Stephen Harper concluded about this section, and yet it seems clearly more relevant in that article than in this one.
At this point maybe we need a third opinion. TiC (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's Behiels who says that "a great many journalists, political advisors, and politicians argue that a new political party paradigm is emerging." He is summarizing for the American audience the consensus of a large Canadian literature of scholarly papers and political commentary. One gets the distinct impression that TitaniumCarbide has not read Behiels --and he has not cited ANY RS to support his position. He assumes that because there are a lot of scholarly articles out there, there surely must be at least one that agrees with his position. But that is reliance ignorance, not verifiable RS.Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering the question about the gated source which I don't have access to. Please note that I do not have a position about whether Behiels is right, that has never been the issue, and repeatedly implying otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Also: why are you now making the section even longer. This is not what I would call collaborative editing. TiC (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it longer because the shorter version was badly misunderstood. This is a major topic of great interest to many scholars and students of Canadian politics. most people in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK can get access to articles by going through their local library.Rjensen (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I have come to this page following a request made for a third opinion at WP:3O. I haven't interacted with either of the editors engaged in discussion and I haven't edited this article before, so I would suggest I am sufficiently neutral to offer an opinion. I'm not really here to vote for one opinion or the other but to help find a way forward that's beneficial for the article and the editors involved.

I think the current section gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single source and a particular POV. This is not to say that it is not valid, but that it doesn't seem very balanced to present one source as the basis for an entire section. I only looked at the WP:3O page 40 minutes ago, so haven't been able to view the source yet, but does Behiels list the "great many journalists, political advisors, and politicians" or is it just an assertion? From a quick Google there is clearly comething afoot in the Canadian political landscape, sources such as this from the Journal for International Relations and Global Trends and this paper about the Canadian conservative governments foreign policy being based around the aim of becoming the "natural governing party". There are decent looking blog articles noting it too, so there must be further, better sources out there.

I think the information would be better portrayed in a manner similar to Politics of UK#Current political landscape (which is actually out of date...) or Politics of Australia#Contemporary Australian national politics, rather than under a heading of Realignment, which is too specific.

Finally, I looked at Realigning election and discovered that Rjensen has added Behiels' work there as well. Does the phrase in that article "...argue that a new political party paradigm is emerging, one based on the drive for a right-wing political party capable of reconfiguring the role of the state – federal and provincial – in twenty-first-century." and in this article as "They see a new power configuration based on a right-wing political party capable of sharply changing the traditional role of the state – federal and provincial – in twenty-first-century" need quotes in the article, as it is repeated in both places – is it a WP:PARAPHRASE of Behiels' article or reformulated for inclusion in the articles?

Thoughts? Bigger digger (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those suggestions are very useful indeed. I moved the section, added information from and cites to Lang (2010) and Bloomfield and Nossal (2007), as suggested, and listed the six main books that Behiels is summarizing. I also made the text in the realignment article congruent with this one.Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off Rjensen, you really should read WP:PARAPHRASE: for copyright reasons Wikipedia cannot closely follow the structure or language of its sources. The line about the voting proportions and a "rump" are too close to Lang's original text. This is different to academic writing, so it's fair enough that you might not realise, but it is important that you correct it.
Secondly, as you're the politics academic, are those sources I found actually any good? I know little about Canadian politics or research in this field. For balance, are there people out there suggesting other reasons for the Conservative's ascendancy?
That's all I can think of for now, I look forward to your response. Bigger digger (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello i have just been made aware of this additions :(. Not sure what to do here. I have some serious problems with this additions. I personal should not get involved because of my personal views of how Rjensen adds what i believe are POV addition that are never balanced. This quotes that are always used are not the normal views on the matter. I would like someone (besides me) to look at additions. I believe conclusions are being made by way of quoting and misrepresenting. We have paragraph after paragraph that are based on just POVs conclusions by one author. I also believe there is as per the norm with Rjensen additions a major synthesis of published material that advances just one position. Again i feel i should step back and not revert as i am biased towards his additions in general, but hope that now that i am the third to voice concerns that the previous or next editors will revert the additions. Moxy (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
working with Moxy is hard 1) because of his personal attacks and 2) his avoidance of all RS. The two are related -- he objects to my introducing scholarship into the articles. The section is now sourced with six major recent books and three recent scholarly articles (two of which were suggested by the independent third party)--which is far more than the rest of the article combined. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep we have problems you and I ....Your right i hate the fact you are always quoting authors out of context. Your whole section is a copy and past of POV's from authors (and only one side of there argument at that). Your using the quotes all the time to sneak in POV statements and weasel words that would not be acceptable in any other format. And the fact ref like Behiels cites Tom Flanagan, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (2nd ed. McGill-Queens U.P., 2009); Chantal Hébert, French Kiss: Stephen Harper's Blind Date with Quebec (Knopf Canada, 2007); William Johnson, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada (2nd ed. McClelland & Stewart, 2006); Lloyd Mackay, Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006); Bob Plamondon, Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics (Key Porter Books, 2006); and Paul Wells, Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (Douglas Gibson Books, 2007). look like a synthesis of published material. Moxy (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is synthesis--Behiels did the synthesis and Wiki reports it. Moxy seems to have his own sources on Canadian politics, but he does not tell us what they are.Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cant address the real concerns raised of undo weight, pov and weasel wording. I will have to fix all this up ...will do it this coming weekend by balancing this out using widely published works on the topic that can be seen by our readers--> Canadian Politics By James Bickerton - The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics By John C. Courtney, David E. Smith - In search of Canadian political culture By Nelson Wiseman - Skating on Thin Ice: Canadian-American Relations in 2010 and 2011 By Alexander Moens..............Moxy (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatives in power Section POV Bias[edit]

The section called "Conservatives in power" has some serious POV bias. Using a single primary source, it suggests that there have been a realignment of Canadian political thought in favour of the Conservatives. This is totally false. In fact, despite their recent slew of election victories, the Conservative popular vote in Canada is at or near their all-time low. One has to only look at the recent election results and do the math. During the 1980s conservative popular vote was substantially above 50% of the popular vote. This trend continued in the 1990s, but was splitting the vote between two conservative parties (the PC and Alliance), leading to successive Liberal majorities. This phenomenon ended in the 2000s with the merger of the two parties. The real reason for the Liberal party's demise and the Conservative party's ascent is the New Democratic Party which has gained significant support in every election in the 2000s, eventually pushing the Liberal party (as well as the BQ) into the background. The NDP's rise has caused a vote-split in seat-rich Ontario in the Conservatives' favour.

I will try to look for some sources and redo the section. Poyani (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poyani has his personal opinions but he has no RS. He should read the contemporary media (Economist, Globe and Mail, MacLeans) that report on the realignment, or scholarly monographs such as How Ottawa Spends, 2010-2011: Recession, Realignment, and the New Deficit Era by G. Bruce Doern and Christopher Stoney (2011). The section in question uses ten different sources--and note the major media have stressed the theme of a major realignment. The Economist said, "the election represents the biggest realignment of Canadian politics since 1993."[8] Lawrence Martin, commentator for the Globe and Mail said, "Harper has completed a remarkable reconstruction of a Canadian political landscape that endured for more than a century. The realignment sees both old parties of the moderate middle, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, either eliminated or marginalized."[9] Maclean's said, the election marked "an unprecedented realignment of Canadian politics" as "the Conservatives are now in a position to replace the Liberals as the natural governing party in Canada."[10]. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep this additions have come up before when they were added long time ago and still have not been fixed. I gave refs in the section above and this cause Rjensen to simply stop talking about the problem. We have this addition added with sources to people like Eugene Lang (co-founder, Canada 2020: Canada’s Progressive Centre). We also have a blatant Synthesis of published material that advances a position Behiels cites Tom Flanagan, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (2nd ed. McGill-Queens U.P., 2009); Chantal Hébert, French Kiss: Stephen Harper's Blind Date with Quebec (Knopf Canada, 2007); William Johnson, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada (2nd ed. McClelland & Stewart, 2006); Lloyd Mackay, Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006); Bob Plamondon, Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics (Key Porter Books, 2006); and Paul Wells, Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (Douglas Gibson Books, 2007). This is all written with a nice POV by someone that is clearly on one side of the fence Conservapedia User:RJJensen .Moxy (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there are now numerous RS that talk about realignment, and none have been presented that support the belief of Poyani that there is no realignment here. Please read the quotations. As for synthesis, that synthesis was done by scholars in RS and we report it here. As for my own politics, Moxy is totally mistaken--I am not a Canadian and I have never taken any position for or against any policy, party or personality in Canadian politics. I'm neutral. :) Perhaps Moxy should tell us where HE stands in Canadian politics so we can discount his personal POV?? Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen, it would be much easier to take you seriously if at least one other editor would come forth and concur with you that the section is not heavily biased to one particular point of view. If one would like to talk about a true realignment in Canadian federal politics it really should be put in the context of the polarization that occurred in both Western Canada and Quebec (for different reasons) prior to the 1993 election with the rise of the neo-conservative Reform Party in Western Canada and the surge in the popularity of the separatist Bloc in Quebec, not to mention the unpopular policies of the Mulroney Conservatives, all of which led to the conditions allowing an otherwise unpopular Liberal leader (Chretien) to ride the waves of discontent to three successive majority governments. Let's talk about whether or not there is a current re-alignment after we've had at least more than one Conservative majority government in the 21st century. I agree with you that there has been a realignment; however we disagree on the nature of the realignment. I would argue that the realignment has been more so one of discontent with out of touch, unaccountable federal governments of any political stripe, to a form of regional polarization which means the Liberals can no longer count on their traditional Quebec stronghold and the Conservatives can no longer count on winning enough seats in Ontario to win a majority. Rather than choosing the boring American style of choosing between only two real options, the same old Duff and Duff Lite choices of their parents and grandparents generations, Canadians are more and more choosing alternatives other than the lesser of two evils, rather than choosing one of the two TOP (Tired Old Parties), more and more of us are voting for progressive change as demonstrated by the rise of the NDP in Quebec during the last federal election in Canada, and the gradual increase in percentage of popular vote being earned by newer parties such as the Green Party. What gets in the way of this progress is the apathy many Canadians suffer from, partly due to our equally old and tired first-past-the-post system which tends to over-represent the two traditional parties and under-represent other parties. So, in conclusion, I concur with the other editors that this whole section needs a re-write, complete with the addition of content properly referenced by other sources that add other more widely held points of view than the one you are pushing. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism[edit]

I was looking to do some research into Canadian politics and I'm a little baffled at the final section of this article labelled "multiculturalism". Specifically, "...it calls into question exactly what has become of true Canadian culture, and what it means to be Canadian. Bannerji (1996) suggests that diversity and multiculturalism in Canada is just a superficial celebration of non-Anglo-European citizens; it has become a top-down strategy of disguised colonialism designed to let the state exploit immigrants and devolve the immigration process."

The article provides zero context to explain why Bannerji's opinions are important or relevant to Canadian policy. Are immigrants being used to create downward pressure on wages? Does this have to do with NAFTA and foreign influence related? How are foreigners being used in "disguised colonialism" if the "colonists" are merely foreign nationals? As a stranger to Canadian politics, I have to infer this is maybe a national socialist perspective since multiculturalism and "disguised colonialism" are often things they complain about, given they believe foreigners dilute their gene pool or culture. I don't know enough about Canadian politics to make any changes right now or elaborate on this section, so would it be possible for someone to shine some light on it? YellowSandals (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian, I would like to add that I have no idea where this viewpoint is coming from, and would appreciate some clarification on this. DC123456789 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look into it. The section about multiculturalism is still strange and sounds like its preaching from an ideological perspective, but it appears that Canadian politics on immigration have changed in the past decade to benefit employers. Here's an article on it:
No country for old men
A summary of the issue is that originally there was a point-based system that accepted immigrants with regard to their fluency in English and French and other general details you might expect of a natural born Canadian. However, the conservative party has revamped the immigration process to be more dependent on employment offers. It's a change with pros and cons - on the bright side, foreign nationals had a hard time finding employment in Canada in the past, so this change means they arrive to Canada with a job on the table. However, immigrants from poor countries will often accept or can be forced to accept lower wages, so employers are taking advantage of this system to suppress wages, which is a similar political issue as the US is having with our H1 visas, from what I understand.
I can't tell if the current writing in the article is national socialist, complaining about a diluted culture because Canada is taking on an increased number of immigrants under this system, or if it's on the other extreme and complaining about social justice, but it appears that Canada's original point system was a bit of a landmark as far as immigration goes so it's important to the country in any case. It might be better for the article to instead explain that Canada had used the old point system since 1967 and was seen as ground-breaking at the time, but has since been revised, creating contention. YellowSandals (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable observations[edit]

Just some questions about the bias reflected in some actual facts that are not consistent with the material presented and may warrant a further examination of the true facts.

1. Multi-party system ? Not really, it is a three party system.

2. True democracy ? Not really, most people get elected at the local level with less than 40% of the vote, in a first past the post electing system.

3. The Prime Minister is not directly elected, and if he or she gets a majority of the vote, he or she get most if not all the power.

4. The power, is a direct result of the fear of a failed vote, and having to call an election.

Far-right politics still not prominent?[edit]

The article claims that far-right politics have never been prominent in Canada, but those sources backing up the claim were made before the PPC and the trucker convoy, which have become far more prominent in Canada, especially the latter. So is it really appropriate to say that far-right politics have never been prominent in Canada anymore? X-Editor (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus of reliable sources on this topic? That would be how that is determined. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify cite to V-Dem Dataset[edit]

The V-Dem citation for Canada being the 19th ranked democracy links to 4 sets of data, and 5 technical reports. For the purposes of a citation, that’s not very helpful, as the reader who wants to follow up would have to download all those materials and then hunt for the rankings. Can a more specific citation to the V-Dem data be provided? Is there an executive summary somewhere? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to pdf, Table 3 with ranking HudecEmil (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Characterization of Liberal Party[edit]

The article says this, "The historically predominant Liberals position themselves at the centre of the political scale, with the Conservatives sitting on the right and the New Democratic Party occupying the left."

But in 2012, Justin Trudeau explicitly stated that any person with even one socially conservative position would not be allowed to run for parliament, and all Liberal Party MPs were expected to vote for ALL socially liberal positions going forward. That clearly places the party well left of centre. So, I think the above is an inaccurate statement. 74.98.11.129 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_Canada&oldid=1200045368"