Talk:The Council of Canadians

Blatant NPOV and plagiarism

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)

The "History" section is lifted directly from their website - www.canadians.org/about/history. This article is propaganda and needs to be cleaned up or deleted.207.6.127.148 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See this edit. I am not personally doing anything further regarding this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

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)

Observation to do with accuracy...

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)

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)

The Council of Canadians has posted on its own website an article from The Montreal Gazette that states the CoC is a left wing group, this source is clearly sited on the Wikipedia page. Syncmaster941bw (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are in fact objective standards to determine whether something is "left-wing", notwithstanding what someone says about themselves. Let's ask Wikipedia contributors to substantiate the allegation, as opposed to wiping it out just because the organization claims otherwise. There is such a thing as "fronts", and if it's an objectively obvious front mis-describing itself, this should be attested. The Montreal Gazette is not infallible; although I tend to think they're right on this point, I still would like to see objective verification, not slavish repetition of what the Council officially says at its web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.226.93 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias in the editing?

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)

also in citation 4 the cited source doesn't mention a dollar amount transferred and they call the location of the transfer Maude Barlow's SFJ account when what they seem to be referring to is the launch of the Maude Barlow Social Justice Fund. the use of the word account makes it seem like embezzlement and the creation of a dollar amount where none exists in the source is also highly troubling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.187.4 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright review and other edits

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)

I re-entered "left wing" into the main text and cited the reference.Syncmaster941bw (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I undid the edit by Canoe1967. The Globe and Mail is a valid reference sourceSyncmaster941bw (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Added another reference source in connection with "left wing" labelSyncmaster941bw (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits

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)

Removed Sun News source on "left-wing". Again, the specific mention of the Council of Canadians being left-wing is not a valid reason for proof of partisanship, as the single mention is the opinion of the articles author, from a very opinionated news source. Jessica Hume does not have references for her statement so I don't see how it's proof here. Muniak (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed "non-partisan" back to "left-wing" At the very least the Council of Canadians can best be described as left-leaning, if not left-wingSyncmaster941bw (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed Syncmaster941bw's last edit. Again, with no real evidence, you chose this stance. Partisanship, in this context, requires that they stand behind one of our parties in all things but they do not. One can still be conservative and want clean drinking water as well as an accountable government. The ideas these people fight for are not party values, they are fundamental to life and democracy in this country. Think about it this way, if the NDP won an election and advocated for fracking as long as those working on fracking were unionized or if they defended the first past the post system, the Council of Canadian's would work to change their minds on either of these issues. Just because their values conflict with the government of the day, does not mean they are opposite on the political spectrum of said government. Muniak (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

The Council of Canadians is forthright in proclaiming that it does not accept donations from corporations or governments, yet fails to mention the same about funding from other groups i.e. political parties, unions, environmental activist groups.Torchoffreedom (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Significant Edit

• 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)

Redid the above edit to the issues tag. I'm assuming it was reversed by Torchoffreedom as part of the larger reversal, and not specifically. If that's not the case, let me know. Mattramsden (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored the history section after Torchoffreedom's reversal of the larger edit. In the absence of any explanation on the talk page, and given that the restored material doesn't involve any of Torchoffreedom's previous edits, I'm assuming this section wasn't specifically intended for removal. I left the SJF line in the History section, given the recent edits to it; however, it remains inaccurate and I don't think it belongs here - see below. Mattramsden (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I recreated the Support section. As with the above edits, without any information on the talk page, I don't think the information in this section was specifically objected to. I also moved the line about the Council receiving or not receiving funds from Governments, unions, corporations, etc., from the header to this section. I didn't edit the line, however, i think it needs some - see below. I think other support and financial information should be consolidated here (the SJF, charitable status) but I will leave those for now, as they have been recently edited and can be discussed below. Mattramsden (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page clean up

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)

The Council does or does not receive money from...

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)

Social Justice Fund

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)

Political Activity

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)

Funding

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:John Tory

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)