Talk:The Council of Canadians

message: How do we delete an article entirely? Because that's what must be done here. Large parts of the article - if not all of it - have been lifted directly from the Council of Canadians website. And if there is any non-plagiarized fragment of writing here, it is blatantly NPOV because it reads like something the Council would say about itself. Delete or re-write. 69.196.169.27 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See this edit. I am not personally doing anything further regarding this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant NPOV and plagiarism 

message: This "article" is obvious not written from a neutral point of view; especially sad is that the untrains/unobservant/tired reader may not notice the subtle (and not-so-subtle) attempts to persuade the reader with rhetoric. In example, "... Barlow lays out the actions that we as global citizens must take to secure a water-just world — a “blue covenant” for all.". Part of taht sentence, "... actions that WE ... must take to secure a water-just world ..." is obviously propaganda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.44.227 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not neutral 

message: The wiki labels the organization as "left wing", which is opinion.  The organization states on it's website (http://www.canadians.org/about/BOD/non-partisanship.html) that it is non-partisan.  I think the words "left wing" should be replaced with "non-partisan", which is more accurate and verifiable.
172.218.107.17 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization may "say" it is non-partisan, but it's pretty obvious that it fits in the left end of the political spectrum, and that most of its positions are in opposition to right-wing ideologies. Even the organization itself hints at this in its description of its policies as "progressive" (a code word for leftist). Of course my opinion, your opinion, and the opinion of the editor you were commenting about are all irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia requires good sources. If someone can find a source in a newspaper, magazine, etc. that refers to the Council of Canadians as "left wing", then that it is a reasonable descriptor to use in this article. 69.196.169.27 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation to do with accuracy... 

message: For me, the whole deal sounds like rightwingers trying to modify this article for a supposed 'neutrality'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.1.152 (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the editing? 

message: The main paragraph under History was a blatant copy paste from this site,so I removed it.
That was followed by a list of actions, none of which were referenced. They were added by an editors with seven edits, who has not edited since the day they were added.
I'm removing them as well. Feel free to restore, if they can be properly referenced. 
The final sentence is referenced to a bad link, I'll try to fix it.
Removing "left-wing" as not supported by source. Need a much better source for something like that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright review and other edits 

message: Changed "left-wing" back to non-partisan. 
While the Globe and Mail is a valid reference source, the single mention of the Council of Canadians being left-wing is done in a quote made by filings for court cases, that did not have success. So no, that specific source is not a valid reason to assign a partisan stance, if anything, that the case did not succeed, should be proof of their non-partisanship. Muniak (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with "Partisanship, in this context, requires that they stand behind one of our parties in all things...."  This is, IMO, an unreasonably narrow definition.  At the same time, I think any characterization of the Council of Canadians' political leaning should be substantiated via high-quality reliable sources.  It may be better not to say either "non-partisan" or "left-wing" until a properly sourced statement can be found.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with Richwales and have removed it. Muniak (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: * Removed the Multiple Issues notices on verification and general clean up, which both dated from 2008. The article has completely changed since the general clean up tag was added – if others feel it applies to the current version, I’ll let them add it back in.  I believe the article is now fully sourced, however; the article does rely on primary sources.  Although this may be unavoidable, I’ve added a primary sources issue tag.
* Created section entitled Support which includes basic financial information from the Council’s annual report.
* Removed “The Council of Canadians receives no money from governments or corporations” – it’s propaganda, and is already implied by the information in the Support section.
* Removed “however it makes no such claims regards funding it receives from organizations such as political parties, labour unions or environmental activist groups.” – It’s also propaganda, and makes no sense without the aforementioned reference to governments and corporations.
* Removed “In 2012 $202,000 was transferred from the Council of Canadians to Maude Barlow's SJF account” - It is both inaccurate (the SJF is named after, not owned or controlled by, Maude Barlow) and inflammatory (it sounds like misappropriation of funds).  Furthermore, this level of accounting detail isn’t found elsewhere in the article or in most articles – it is a single line cherry picked from the Council’s audited financial statements.
* Removed the section “Funding Controversy”.  This was based on a single news item about which there is no actual controversy (the Council indicates foundation funding in its publically available annual report). The second sentence in the section (“On its website, the Council of Canadians admits to receiving funding from US foundations to engage in political activities in Canada”) was inaccurate – the referenced blog post makes no mention of spending foundation money on political activities in Canada.
* Merged the section entitled “Political Activity” with the newly created “Support” section.  The Political Activity section contained only one sentence, and no discussion of political activity. The Council’s lack of charitable status could be considered relevant to financial information in the Support section, though even then, it’s of questionable value in a Wikipedia article and is already implied in the first sentence of the article.
* Expanded the History section, including information from the Council’s website
Mattramsden (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Edit 

message: I think some sections on this talk page could be consolidated.  
* The first two sections, "Blatant NPOV and plagiarism" and "Article is not neutral" both deal with the same issue - they could be merged into a single section.  
* The section titled "Copyright review and other edits" can be split - the first three comments relate to NPOV and citations, and could be placed in the aforementioned newly merged section; while the remaining comments would fit under the general edits section, or the "left-wing" discussion under "Observation to do with accuracy".  
* Finally, the "Observation to do with accuracy" section could perhaps be renamed to more accurately represent the debate over "left-wing".
Mattramsden (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page clean up 

message: Regarding the statement that the Council receives no money from Governments or Corporations; although this may be appealing to the Council’s constituents, I’m not sure it’s relevant to the Wikipedia article, unless we include a much more detailed breakdown of the Council’s funding, policies, etc.  The corresponding statement – that the Council “makes no such claims regards funding it receives from organizations such as political parties, labour unions or environmental activist groups” is both incorrect (on a blog post cited by TorchofFreedom, the Executive Director stipulates that the Council receives no political donations) and clearly biased.  It’s simply a way to suggest that the Council might receive funds from other groups, without having to explain or verify the assertion.  If the Council receives funding from a particular group, and if that funding is somehow relevant, then describe and cite. Mattramsden (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Council does or does not receive money from... 

message: This line is better than it was previously, but it’s still not accurate.  The social Justice fund is not a separate entity from the Council - no money was transferred “from” the Council.  As per the citation, the Council launched the SJF in 2012.  The audited financial statements clarify further:
* “$202,000 was transferred from unrestricted net assets to this fund in 2012.  This significant transfer was made possible … due to a generous bequest…” 
The current phrasing seems to skirt around the obvious subject (launching the fund) to focus on a vague financial detail.  It’s like saying someone “makes regular payments to minors” rather than saying they give allowance to their kids. Mattramsden (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Justice Fund 

message: I think the Political Activity still needs work. Without context it’s unclear why the section exists.  The addition of information on the Court case is good – that is clearly political activity – but it needs clarification (the court case wasn’t against the CPC).  I don’t think information on the Political Director adds anything – it would be a better fit in a section on organizational structure or staff.  
I will try to add an introduction to the section to give context, and perhaps find more examples of political activity to fill it out. Mattramsden (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Activity 

message: The Funding Controversy is still really weak, and I have real trouble seeing how it could be considered NPOV.  Both assertions in the section are incorrect.  First, the Sun News video does not accuse the Council of using U.S. foundation money for work on energy in Canada – watching it carefully I don’t think they ever make that claim.  There’s plenty of “Aha!” and innuendo, but the reporter doesn’t actually say much beyond the fact that the Council gets some money from US foundations.  Near the end, Ezra Levant says “I bet there is a lot more dough coming across the border than just for water,” but he provides no reason for believing this or evidence to support it.
The Second sentence is also inaccurate: the blog post in question says nothing about where foundation money is spent; simply that it is spent – at least in part – on “access to clean water”.  
And again, the title is a real stretch. A single news item which makes no direct accusations and cites only publicly available information (that is confirmed by the Council itself) can hardly be termed a “controversy”.  
Information about the Council’s funding – including foundations - can be / is provided in a separate section.  The reader is free to draw their own conclusions. Mattramsden (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Council of Canadians. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150213045542/http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140414-072252.html to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140414-072252.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tory stepped down as Toronto mayor. He has given up so much due to a very human indiscretion. Can we honestly say there’s a better candidate to fill his shoes? 
From the time he admitted his error in judgement, he has behaved with the utmost dignity. In my opinion, we should not mix politics with personal issues. I propose we start a petition to ask him not to resign as Major, but continue his hard work to make Toronto a better place.
Sincerely,
Judy Tong
Toronto 2607:FEA8:A560:AB00:583E:282D:1476:7593 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:John Tory