Talk:Christian Labour Association of Canada

References

I am attempting to rework the references section but I am not sure which part of the article (if any) to attribute directly the ITUR source or if it is a "See generally" for the whole content. Robbie dee 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the ICTUR ref right out. I used it as my source when I started the article, but I see that the only original info left is the name and location of the head office! --Bookandcoffee 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

npov

I added a disputed tag because the intro paragraph reads a bit spamish. It should probably be rewritten to sound less like an ad for pursuading people to join. M i c 03:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would second this. The text outside of the criticism section sounds like a brochure for the union. Manic-pedant 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Membership totals

I'm having trouble getting confirming of the CLAC membership totals. I note that the SPA at User:209.202.108.50 has transferred to the article a recent update from the CLAC website that says their membership is 43000 (up from the previous quote of 38000.) At the same time, still at the CLAC website, if you take their "guided tour", it says twice that their membership is 25000. Google hasn't been much of a help, either. I found a single useful quote about 23600 from 2006. So, what does this deliver? The quoted membership numbers I've been able to find are 23600, 25000, 25000, 38000 and 43000. Any suggestions? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Try the HRDC numbers... I found http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/wid/union_membership.shtml this says 42,876. HRDC should (in theory) be the most reliable source for this type of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athabaska-Clearwater (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Labour Program of Canada Union membership numbers for 2013 put CLAC's membership at 58,826. http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/resources/info/publications/union_coverage/union_coverage.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Support Unions (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Spam article?

I find the recent total rewrite of this article by the SPA, Union guy (contribs), to be unencyclopedic. The changes have removed referenced material without explanation. The resultant article sounds like it was written by CLAC head office. I suggest reversion to the long-standing article as it was prior to 2009 07 MAY. Comments? 209.105.193.139 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I will revert the article within a day or two to the previous, long-standing version in an effort to re-insert balance and restore the previous sourced information. 209.105.193.139 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There having been no objection, I completed the reversion moments ago. The changes that had been made to the long-standing article had been made by an SPA who has not made another edit before or since. 209.105.193.139 (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)