Talk:Young Communist League of Canada

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Politics Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Updates

The 1930s section is getting updated as we try to upload a lot of information from the 1982 history of the YCL, plus some cuts from Maurice Rush's We Have a Glowing Dream and Niergart's version of Kashtan's text -- --70.67.118.32 (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Johan1917[reply]

References

For some reason, someone is editing this page by removing the references of this document, and then adding a box at the top saying this article lacks resources. Could this be explained?

Young Greens of Canada

The "Young Greens of Canada" has appeared as a related wikipedia page. Youth organizations was used as a blanket category for these types of related organizations, however the Young Greens of Canada should have no special relation anymore than the Young Liberals or Young NDP.

No pissing contests please

I sense the beginning of a article turf war by the intrusion of the Young Greens of Canada link. Indeed, the comment above is a valid point. Either include all youth organizations on all pages or none at all.

As well, references should not be deleted arbitrarily. References should conform to wikipedia's standard policies on this matter. J. D. Pfaff 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why I put them all in. Blogs don't conform to a reliable source. GreenJoe 05:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blog is an official RSS feed of the YCL-LJC of Canada website. When you visit www.ycl-ljc.ca, you will immediately notice a shortened version of this article, with this exact link to view a full-length version. This article has been passed by the central committee of the YCL-LJC.

Also, the second reference is not a blog, but an official site.

These are valuable references to viewers who are researching this topic and they should not be deleted without reason.

User:S.B. 13 June 2007

Unrelated

None of these organizations have a relationship with the YCL to have to appear in the "See also" section. People can find these under a similar category, cat tags are used for this purpose. --Mista-X 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The YCL is now a member of the world federation of Democratic Youth.

Im going to edit this in the international part. --CmrdMariategui 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the YCL Canada must first get the approval of CENA (Central Europe North America) section of WFDY. CENA then proposes the new membership to WFDY as a whole. So far, the organization received approval from CENA, who will be putting it forth at the next meeting of WFDY. The recent approval of CENA was the bulk of it, so it sort of seemed like the task had been completed. I will not change anything though, because I am not a hard ass. I just wanted to clarify it here.

Since 2008 the organization has been through that process and is restored as a full member. - JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCB1980 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use of word powerful

Looked at revision 22:11, 8 May 2008, when compared to older edits, the change has changed the meaning of the sentence to make the YCL sound like competition to the youth movement when it is merely fighting for a powerful movement-to strengthen the movement. The editor has removed "powerful" thinking it was an exaggeration. Will rework an acceptable word later.J. D. Pfaff (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an advertisement

This page breaks so many Wikipedia rules. The history section says "The 1920s: A Dream Coming into Birth". Very nice propaganda there, but unfortunately the whole article is written like an advertisement. It is supposed to be NPOV. JettaMann (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an associate of the YCL I do agree that the article's tone is unencyclopedic. It seems to be someone's essay that they just pasted in. That said, I am not going to go and commit myself to rewriting it at this time. Technopeasant (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years down the line, I must say I agree with the statement that this appears to be like an ad. Article still needs work. Vulpicula (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag

So far, I've managed to edit the article up to the end of the section on the 1930s in an effort to improve the neutrality of the language. It's a large and ongoing effort, so I apologize for any confusing parts or hanging sections. I intend to continue this effort, but the magnitude of bias present in the article may mean that the whole thing requires a re-write. Issues with one-sided sourcing, weasel words and outright propagandic language are presenting serious difficulties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.134.57 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]