Jump to content

Talk:Green Party of Quebec

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

The Parti vert du Québec and the National Question

[edit]

So is this party federalist or separatist????

I'd also like to know where they stand on the sovereignty question.

Their official platform contain references to neither. Based on some of their articles, they seem to consider none of the options to be in line with their goals. Rather they seem to favour the altermondialist visions of various levels of association between various entities. In that sense, they are somewhat close to the souveraignty-association option but in a very mild form.
If we realy need to place them somewhere, they would probably be part of the (very) soft nationalist vote. --Marc pasquin 02:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I can tell you that there's no official stance on this question up to this date. In fact, it is a touchy subject because there's people from every political spectrum in the Green Party. However, the local congress of Montreal is supposed to organize a meeting to adopt an official position. As for the general Green "Values", the Global Greens Charter pledge for the "respect of diversity", but this is a rather large concept, ranging from biodiveristy to culture.
For future reference on the Parti vert du Québec and the National Question, I bring this to the community's attention. "Le Parti vert n'est pas fédéraliste", an opinion letter published in newspaper Le Devoir from a Parti vert du Québec militant. Here is my own translation.
  • Letters: The Parti vert is not federalist
There is a detestable custom and a certain dishonesty on the part of some journalists and political columnists in letting the idea that the Parti vert du Québec would be federalist run about.
However, a great number of sympathizers of the cause of sovereignty still militate in this young political formation. Never would I have invested myself in this party had it been otherwise. What must clearly be said is that the Parti vert du Québec is a place of gathering for everyone who wish to reflect in priority on a citizen approach around great environmental dilemas that attain our societies and make us question their future.
It is foremost a unifying party that refuses all form of sterile dogmatism that would seek to divide us into «good» and «bad guys».
It is also one of the reasons that explain the repeated refusal of the members to join themselves to Québec solidaire. The result of the Pointe-aux-Trembles by-election is a message without ambiguity that this position must be maintained.
A faithful representation of the party politics or the words of a lone, confused supporter? Clearly the former, as this letter was linked from the official Parti vert du Québec website (visible in the "Sur le web" section of this press coverage page on the day I am writing this; try the Internet Archive if the Devoir or the Parti vert website links go dead). Just thought this could help sort out the great existential debate on this. --Liberlogos 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point would be of placing them on this spectrum. It seems to me that the Green party, in general, was made to campaign for green policies, no matter which party was in power. The question of sovereignty is, quite simply, beyond their raison d'être. Just as the BQ campaigns on sovereignty rather than on the traditional (in Western politics) left-right divide, the various Green parties in Canada campaign on environmentalism rather than either the left/right spectrum or the sovereignty/federalist spectrum. The federal Green Party is the same way, as its membership consists of people from various political places (mostly from the left, but quite a few from the right as well).

One thing that the article should mention, though, is whether there are still two Green parties in Quebec separated by language or whether they were officially "united". This is never really made clear. Esn 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are? Which is the other Green Party? GreenJoe 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-semitic comments of Bramann and other candidates"

[edit]

I don't know where the reference to anti-semitic comments come from. I looked through newspaper archive and found that in the Montreal Gazette, Jan 31, 1991: "In a statement he issued Sunday without consulting his Quebec wing members, [Rolf Bramann] said: "Only a dead [Saddam Hussein] will be a good Hussein."

Fair use rationale for Image:Green Party Quebec 2006.jpg

[edit]

Image:Green Party Quebec 2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Green Party leader

[edit]

http://www.pvq.qc.ca/fr/node/1261 My god, for the last time its Guy Rainville now, not Scott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.147.100 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I require an English source to back up your statement. I can't read that. GreenJoe 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could pick out enough to tell the story was on the right track. This (translate.google.com) should be sufficient to validate it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they have not updated the Chef page on the English side, which didn't help this situation at all. The page is updated on the French side. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my fault you can't read the language of the site. If your going to undo factual info, you have to make sure your positive that your info is correct. This is a french-Canadian organization, if your going to update it with me, you'll need to pick up on some of the language. The title of the article should have given it away. (P.S- Nowhere does it say an english source is required, that French source, whether you can read it or not is completely valid.) 74.14.146.128 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, sources are expected to be in English.
From here:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. GreenJoe 20:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no direct quote, no translation is needed in the footnote, and the machine translation is available from the link I gave above. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a source in French is most appropriate. The province has many more francophones then anglophones, the source (the party website) has most articles only available in french. I'm happy you gave me this, because I was aware that it would be preferable to have an english source, however that 'where possible' in the text allows me to give you a french source, and it would be completely valid. I don't need to give you a english source, I will give you the source easiest to find in the future if I have to. If you want an english source, you are fully capable of utilizing the internet, I don't need to provide you extra sources, if you don't like the one given. 74.14.131.73 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Party of Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHO EVER THIS IS ...YOU'VE VANDALIZED THE LINKS HERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.157.86 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Pretty sure the bot edited in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Green Party of Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green Party of Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Party_of_Quebec&oldid=1207424795"