Canada Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Council of Canadians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

=

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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