Talk:Canadian Taxpayers Federation

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

Bias[edit]

I just stumbled across this article and it's pretty clear the "links to conservative parties" section needs to be cleaned up to remove POV. No sources are cited, and frankly, it reads like original research to support a political conspiracy theory. Clicking through the CTF's website, they seem to have been just as critical of conservative government excesses and policies as of liberal ones, e.g. [[1]]. I don't find it surprising that an organization focused on lowering the tax burden doesn't have may NDP party members on staff, but how relevant is that? Are there any independent third parties who allege bias on the part of this organization (beyond its mandate to reduce the size of government)? --Chris Thompson 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is rather self-promotional, but only because it's clearly been ripped from a website: "who we are" for example...?Super Callum! xxx 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged this for bias but my flag was removed so I reverted back to putting in the flag. I know this is an opinion piece but it might shed light on some of the controversy for would be editors who are unfamiliar with this organization, and quick to close this file. Hard to find anything on the ctf which is not opinion based, regardless...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-taxpayer-federation-opinion-lamont-1.3802441 70.74.121.182 (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Awards section[edit]

Section on Teddy Awards Controversy has been twice removed by Ckatz using the rational "too specific for encyclopedic article, is it even notable?". It's not clear what is meant by something being "too specific for encyclopedic article", but without doubt the item is "notable". It caused a media stir at the time, and resulted in follow-up reporting by the Winnipeg Free Press to point out the CTF's error and a subsequent withdrawl by the CTF. Besides being notable for the media attention it garnered, it's notable as an example of the CTF failing to properly confirm it's claims. Such an occasion is obviously notable for an organization which is relied upon for information by the mainstream media as much as the CTF is. Same section was also previously deleted by Fordham07, and subsequently reverted by Ground Zero with the comment "Wikipedia is not a platform for the CTF to promote itself. It is an encyclopedia. The article must be neutral". This further demonstrates that the information is legitimate. The only reason I can think of why someone would want it removed is self-interest. --165.23.247.49 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't presume as to the intentions of other editors. The section needs a rewrite and copy edit for brevity, as it is way too long for what it describes. It is also only marginally notable as a stand-alone event. For an encyclopedia article, it needs a broader context - more examples, etc. --Ckatzchatspy 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "marginally notable". It was national news, with legs. It was also an event of significant general interest given the fact that the CTF is widely quoted in Canadian media and claims to present accurate accountability. In this particular case, the ball was badly dropped. Given their stated goals and mandate and pervasive presence in Canada, it is notable. I will research and include some more external links that demonstrate the notability of the event.24.76.254.144 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote me correctly - I said "marginally notable as a stand-alone event." The section needs to be more than just a single event - there should be more development, mention of whether or not this is an isolated incident, etc. I'll say again, as well, that it definitely needs a copy edit as it is far too long in comparison to the article. --Ckatzchatspy 05:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit is done - removed non-encyclopedic text, added numerous internal links, formated refs, found ref. for Winnipeg Free Press story. Could still use development. --Ckatzchatspy 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Government and Accountability[edit]

I have no idea what accountability means in reference to the CTF. I know it considers limits of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions per a person too low at both the federal and provincial level, and also that it thinks banning corporate and union donations is some kind of travesty, so I can say with reasonable certainty what kind of accountable government it is not interested in. I know it is a watchdog for the mis-use of money, but i believe we cover that when we talk about waste.

Also if one does a google search for "size of government site:taxpayer.com" one finds 111 hits, 25 unique hits and every single one of them is either detracting increases in the size of government or lauding decreases. For a frame of reference there are about 667 unique hits for site:taxpayer.com and 6530 among all hits. The second last major round of federal tax cuts in this Country, while supported by 80% of Canadians had 57% of Canadians claim the money would have been better spent on a national daycare program while 55% said it would be better spent on greenhouse reduction[2]. Goods & Services TAX is a sales TAX PAID by nearly every adult CANADIAN. In addition about two to three times a year a poll will come out on whether or not Canadians would be willing to have a slight tax increase to 'fix' the healthcare system: I have yet to see a majority say no. There is usually a corresponding question about forgoing tax cuts, which almost always garners more than 60% support. The CTF's response to one study showing the combined tax rate of Canadians earning less than 14,000 were higher than those earning over 265,000 was that, that a tax load of ovr 30% combined(sales tax, property tax, income tax, gas tax, etc., etc.) was too high for any group, and it would bring about an unfair emphasis on taxing the rich("I think it's convenient to blame the so-called rich")[3]. I submit therefore that a government that is accountable would behave in a vastly different way then the CTF's perscriptions, but as an organization interested in 'reducing the size of government' the CTF is an excellent fit Jethro 82 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability generally refers to democratic reforms advocated by the CTF that fall outside of the category of lowering taxes or reducing government waste. The CTF advocates a form of proportional representation, politician recall, greater use of referendums, greater whistleblower protection, etc. Reducing the size of government would seem to be a duplication of reduction of government waste. --70.74.192.80 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offices in the Capitals[edit]

I removed the references to "offices in the capital cities of..." and replaced it with the actual names of the cities. The old wording indicated that there is an office in Victoria; but the BC office is in Vancouver. 154.20.164.82 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

I believe a controversies section should be added. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has previously listed information on their website about global warming being a 'myth'. Furthermore, there is currently a video on their website (http://www.nocarbontaxes.com/) that is riddled with misinformation, thus demonstrating partisanship when they are supposed to be non-partisan. I would be more than happy to show documented proof of this. Thus, are there any objections to creating this section? Canking (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of where they are misleading the public.
a) The video references that Europe's emissions rose between 2000 and 2005. However, carbon taxes were only implemented by several countries, and therefore can't be responsible for lowering all of Europe's emissions. Furthermore, they only target a share of an economy's emissions sources.
b) The video argues against emissions trading as well, and as with carbon taxes, does not mention what emissions would have been had these mechanisms not be in place. Europe's emissions were down in 2007, and emissions covered under the Emissions Trading Scheme fell by an estimated 3% in 2008. Canking (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that this post was made in 2009 and yet there seems to be no controversies section in 2017. I do wonder if the CTF actively manages this page to exclude controversies. In all the years I've known about them I've considered them hyperpartisan and unaccountable. There are numerous well written critiques that I've read of their activities over the years (e.g. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/09/17/Canadian-Taxpayers-Federation-Accountability/).

Gov transparency[edit]

Thanks for the help cleaning up some of the sections. However, I don't see why the gov. transparency section was deleted, and am thinking of adding it again. Kmm8392 (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about that. That was a slip-up on my part. I've restored it. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing bias[edit]

This entire article smacks of a conservative, right-wing bias. Why is there no criticism section? The CTF is essentially the Tea Party of Canada. 216.174.137.78 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canadian Taxpayers Federation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Taxpayers Federation. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tone[edit]

I flagged this article for biased tone as per the discussion in the talk section. Why was the flag removed? 70.74.121.182 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When adding the POV tag, you are expected to explain why you believe the article violates neutrality. You did not do so. There was no meaningful discussion on this talk page. For that matter, it's still unclear if you think the article is too biased in favour of, or too biased against, the CTF. My guess is that you think it's too biased in favour of, but you haven't made your arguments clear. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already significant discussion with respect to bias on this page 70.74.121.182 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy awards[edit]

I am questioning why we have the list of Teddy awards, if nearly none have third-party coverage. It seems like this is amplifying their work, thus advertorial, and feel the list should be removed unless we can find third-party sources. But I feel that's a big change, so wanted to check here for a few days before making a WP:BOLD move. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for all the other awards too here, almost like this just parrots their own website. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Taxpayers_Federation&oldid=1206528934"