Talk:Canadian Children's Rights Council/Archive 1

Archive 1

Legality of Company

The American Children's Rights Council owns the copyright to the title "Children's Rights Council". You can see that here: www.CRCkids.org. Because this Canadian organization technically cannot have what is its name, is it within Wikipedia's rules to remove this page? Thank you, Kb3mlmsk (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The above statement is incorrect. An examination of the copyright at Industry Canada shows that the Children's Rights Council in America ( not the American Children's Rights Council ) has trademarked a logo which contains the words "Children's Rights Council" in a cartoon type lettering with two drawing's, one of the boy's face and the other a girl's. The trademark specifically states that the words " Canadian" "children's" "rights" and "council" are not included in that trademark. They can't be under Canadian law. In addition, the Internet shows 2 "Children's Rights Council" organizations in the U.S.A. One based in Landover, Maryland, U.S.A. ( www.CRCKids.org , the one mentioned above ) and the other, totally unrelated, in the Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A. named "Council for Children's Rights" of America at www.cfcrights.org. An examination of their website will show the dozens of lawyers they have on staff. In addition, there are other organisations with similar names in both Canada and the U.S.A.....shall I go on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.21.49 (talk • contribs)

Freechild objection to notability tag page removal - Canadian Children's Right Council

Freechild, you created this web page . Are you for or aganist the notability of this page?

Are you going to deal with the issue or just change other's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.11.58 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

As is, the page lacks evidence of notability. All links are to its own web pages, or do not specifically mention CCRC. Google books turns up 6 minimal hits, none of which are sufficient to justify inclusion. Google news turns up none. Straight up google turns up nothing useful for notability. Discussion in reliable sources should be used to avoid deletion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Get the name right It's not CCRC

Why did you undo the fix I made to correct the name. The legal name is what I stated. Why did you change it back to the wrong name? The legal name is the english and french with a - between them. Smith research (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability (2)

Do a Google search on their website and you will find them frequently quoted in the national media articles such as the Globe and Mail and The National Post, the 2 largest national daily newspapers. I found 4 or 5 wuotes by their president in The Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper which is in Toronto. One is at [1] ( a Canadian Press article) and The Canadian Press supplies articles to the media across Canada. Another article is at: [2]

The front page of their website has a link to a video of the president on CTV's Canada AM, Canada's most watched morning TV news show.

Their president has been on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation show CBC News Sunday with Carole MacNeil and Evan Solomon nafew times. It is one of the leading TV journalism shows in Canada. He was debating family law with the past chair of the National Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. You can view the CBC video online at: [3]

If you check the COMSCORE website rankings, they get more visitors than UNICEF Canada or Save the Children Canada both of whom have the CanadianCRC as links on their website.

The Government of Canada has numerous links into their website. One is on the Library and Archives Canada. [4] section 323 Civil and political rights

Most of the human rights libraries have them listed as well. One is the University of Ottawa - Human Rights Research and Education Centre http://www.cdp-hrc.uottawa.ca/eng/doc/can-web/discriminationcan_e.php Smith research (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC) comment added by Smith research (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If the organization has been discussed in newspapers, then link them as inline citations because I could not find them on google news. Also possibly linked is the news programs mentioned. As for the collections canada and CDP cites, those are not substantive discussions, they are just links to the page from a linkfarm. So they don't work for notability. The CBC link doesn't seem to mention CCRC except in the comments, which are not reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If Canada's 3 TV networks have them on their shows, that's notable enough for me and everyone else. Why do you disagree?Smith research (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment dismissing the CBC video when you stated "The CBC link doesn't seem to mention CCRC except in the comments, which are not reliable sources. " You obviously didn't watch the video or you disagree with their politics.Smith research (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make personal comments about the motivations of other editors as you did above, SmithResearch. It seems that you might need to look at the WP guidelines for the notability of organizations. A few brief, tangential mentions of an organization in articles about other things are not enough to clearly establish notability (and there is only one listed in the article at present) We need articles in books and newspapers about the organization. Were any of the TV programs actually about the group? I am going to restore the notability tag for now, since it isn't a criticism: the whole point of it is to encourage reliable sources proving notability to be added. If they can't be found, then after a certain period of time anWP:AFD nomination might need to be considered.--Slp1 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the article. By way of acknowledging this discussion, I will simply say that I believe the requirement for this page to have "reliable, independent secondary sources" has been met. There has been significant coverage, and there are secondary sources cited and further available. Best wishes. • <font color="#C00000" Freechild'sup? 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Freechild, for your comments. At the moment there is only one "reliable, independent secondary source" cited in the article, and it only mentions CCRC very briefly. Do you know of other sources that mention the organization in more detail? If so, could you add them to the article? Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, SR, please assume good faith. I'll review the sources later when I have more time, but the ones I looked at to date mention single opinions by people connected to CCRC, and do not discuss the organization in depth. Please devote your efforts to reading the guidelines pointed out and improving the page based on them. If you are serious and committed to helping wikipedia, you must be familiar with our rules and can't rely on others to do improve the page for you. As is, the page could very easily be deleted. If you really wish to avoid this, take the sources you have pointed out and use them as inline citations in the page to clearly demonstrate notability. I would still suggest that the items may support notability of specific people rather than the organizaion as a whole, but I'll have to review the sources in greater detail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notabily definition states:

“ Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.

”

In what way doesn't it meet the standard? I suggest that you provide a detailed summary of your "opinion" on the discussion page and compare it to other Wikipedia content articles about other organizations. This organization is clearly more "notable" than thousands of others. You obviously haven't checked the various provincial and federal legislative committee transcripts and the position papers that the CanadianCRC has submitted. By the way ...I keep telling you that it is NOT the "CCRC" as you refer to it. If you had knowledge about children's rights in Canada, you would know that.67.204.0.204 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. See the below section, where I provide just the summary you request (before it was deleted). I am still convinced it does not meet my high standards for notability, but it would probably survive an AFD discussion, so I won't bother. That won't prevent sock and meatpuppets with conflicts of interest from cramming POV-pushing spam and advocacy onto the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WLU stated "I am still convinced it does not meet my high standards for notability, but it would probably survive an AFD discussion, so I won't bother." What an arrogant rear end. You keep quoting your interpretation of the principles of Wikipedia and the edit based on your own standards. Thius is Wikipedia not WLUPEDIA

No, you ascribe a monolithic uniformity to all wikipedia editors. I am a deletionist, meaning I have high standards for what I expect out of an article. There are many editors who disagree with my position, and I have learned through years of editing where my standards end and where the rest of the community's standards begin. So rather than undertake the rather tedious and timeconsuming process of generating a full deletion discussion that will almost certainly result in a keep, I'm parsing the sources for a record of my thinking. You are an anonymous IP with no interest in learning how wikipedia actually functions, as a concept, community or website, but you are very interested in promoting your specific truth about this organization. If you took the time to learn about wikipedia, how it works, and what the policies actually say, you'd understand there are fruitful ways of doing things, resolving conflicts and good reasons why we have the policies we do. So please don't make grand statements about something you manifestly don't understand, and please don't assume bad intentions which are clearly not there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Here's my analysis of the sources presented:

• [5] - a soundbite from Grant Wilson; more a source for child abandonment than this page
• [6] - another soundbite
• [7] - arguably the most useful for notability, but again it's not about CCRC, it's more soundbite stuff.
• [8] - this can't be used for anything
• [9] - not useful
• [10] - This is from the main page. It's a soundbite from Grant Wilson, and the only thing that could be said is that Wislon called for a commissioner of children.

Most of these are sources indicate that the CCRC is a cheap soundbite, and all of them are soundbites from Grant Wilson. Arguably, he might be notable, but most fail the "extensive discussion" criteria. Even the interview, he's not talking about CCRC, he's discussing an issue. All also show the organization's considerable bias as a father's rights organization, not children's rights. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. However, when compared to other Wiki articles about other organizations, this organization stands out. Are your personal politics causing this prejudice? I noted the article topics that you enjoy editing and there are some cfonflicts with child rights positions.67.204.11.48 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WLU stated above [7] - arguably the most useful for notability, but again it's not about CCRC, it's more soundbite stuff. Apparently, a debate on CBC News Sunday with Carole Macneil and Evan Soloman, between the CanadianCRC president and the past chair of the National Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Assocaiton isn't noteworthy enough for WLU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.21.49 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The correct legal name for the Canadian Children's Rights Council and the constant reverts.

You have changed the name from the legal name of the council and the keep reverting th an abbreviation that is not that of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, Kindly explain your actions on the discussion page before making any more changes. A consensus is needed in order to have correct information. You might find it helpful to look at the discussion page to get some insight into the council. It explains their appearances on CBC, Global TV and CTV television networks as well as their frequent quotes carried on child rights issues in Canada and authoritative presentationjs to various legislative committees and position papers. They are the most quoted source on child rights in Canada. You may also wish to research COMSCORE or some other reputable source of web traffic visitors to their "Virtual Library" of articles and documents pertaining to the rights of Canadian children.67.204.11.48 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction in this matter. I agree that the abbreviation should be left out as you suggest and have done so, while restoring a reference you deleted and removing some unsourced material which seemed quite promotional in tone. --Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly question for my learning Slp1, why did you remove the infobox? And CCRC quite clearly is an abbreviation of a name that starts with the letters "C", "C", "R" and "C". CCRC does not own the page, does not control the content, and has zero right to determine what is on this page. In fact, they have less right to edit the page than I do, because of their conflict of interest. I would guess that they appear on these news agencies because like most news agencies, they are looking for a cheap quote and based on the name CCRC looks like a children's rights organization, and not the father's rights organization that it rather clearly is.

Also note that the positions supported by CCRC are not supported by the citations used to verify them - the repeal 43 cite is dead, the page about corporal punishment was a discussion by Alyson Schafer with no indication she's a member on her page or on CCRC's and could simply be one of many potential copyright violations and the CCRC page was for infanticide was justa bunch of news stories. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

re CCRC abbreviation: it seems to me, based on this [11], this [12] and this [13] that there has been some dispute about this issue with the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children; an older organization which appears to be an umbrella organization for those interested in children's rights issues, with membership, a named board from across Canada, conferences etc.[14] Various of the IPs and editors have alluded to something similar. I will contact User:Geni to see what information from the OTRS she can give us, but in the meantime I think it should be left out. The Canadian CRCouncil should, at the same time, change their own logo visible in the browser window when at their website, since that uses the apparently problematic CCRC abbreviation.

I removed the information box because I'm only in favour of them if they provide valuable information. In this case, the main content of infobox I deleted was information about the number of 'staff' and 'members' that this organization has. This information comes from another website.[15] I sincerely doubt that this information is accurate. There is apparently no office for CanCRC and the 28 staff claimed: their postal address is a postal outlet/service [16]; and according to their website an answering machine often answers the phone, they don't have a fax machine, and can't afford to return long-distance phone calls. It seems highly unlikely for such a well-staffed NGO. The claim for 2000 members seems to have confused the organization's membership number in the CRIN with the number of members in the organization.[17] There is also no mechanism for becoming a member on their website (unlike the proper CCRC [18]) In addition, the revenue required to support 28 staff and 2000 members would considerable, but they aren't a charity per the Canadian Revenue Agency (and couldn't be because of their advocacy work), and they don't appear to have any revenue generating mechanisms on their website, even a membership fee. While this is all totally circumstantial, I think there is considerable reason to doubt the veracity of the claim of 28 staff and the total "membership" seems based on misunderstanding, it seems. Perhaps they have 28 very dedicated volunteers?? Seems more likely, but just speculation of course, though alluded to here. In the text itself, the information is at least couched in "reportedly" terms but in the infobox it was stated as fact. That's why I deleted the infobox.--Slp1 (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

More on the abbreviation issue.. this edit [19] seems to imply that the issue is with trademark infringement with a US group called the Children's Rights Council, with which it has no connection (and which has its own Canadian chapter) and this disclaimer on their website.[20] What a hornet's nest!!!--Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I like infoboxes because it adds uniformity to a wide variety of pages, and to summarize information (per my interpretation of Help:Infobox). An empty series of fields in an infobox also begs to be filled, the same way a redlink begs to have an article written (also invites spam and vandalism though). I'd rather replace the infobox simply because most organization pages have them and it looks odd and incomplete to me, but leave the problematic fields blank (though how does the number of employees ever get filled in? Presumably it's always self-reporting...) I don't really have a problem with including the number of staff in the body as "The CCRC reports..." and in the infobox with a similar note. Odd that CRIN has a fax number while CCRC doesn't. Otherwise, your analysis is convincing to me, and flags a variety of problems with the organization and page.

For me, an abbreviation is an abbreviation; the only confusion we could have on wikipedia is with the order of the list on the disambiguation page (tah-dah!). It's an abbreviation, a shorthand for the organization's name, so I see the risk of confusion on this page to be minimal. Frankly, this seems like the kind of thing where what the organizations want plays second fiddle to common sense - "Canadian Children's Rights Council" is a mouthful and CCRC seems natural. I don't think we're advocating or engaging in original research by noting and using the abbreviation on the page as long as there is a DAB page that clearly distinguishes between the abbreviations here. Would be sweet to document the CCRC abbreviation controversy if we could, but Burman 2008 doesn't have much detail. One thing I don't want to do is read a lot into the posting of previous editors - we document what we can with the sources we have, I don't see how four letters can be trademarked outside of a domain name, and I really don't think this is a huge issue. If only advocates for the CCRCouncil think there is something here, and they don't have the sources to back it up, it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If the CCRCouncil uses the abbreviation themselves , I see no reason to avoid it here. Regards the name used, I'd rather have the current CCRC Inc. and CCDE inc. as is up now. As I've mentioned before, the current name and lead seems to be justified per a variety of policies and guidelines and the abbreviation unproblematic. WP:ABBR seems to support me in this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In such a short article, I'm not sure that a summary infobox is that needed, but I'm not opposed to its return in principle. I suggest we simply leave out the staffing number, since it seems controversial.

By the same token, since the use of the acronym CCRC appears controversial to other editors (and apparently to a scholar, the "real" CCRC and perhaps others), I believe WP should avoid its use, in order to avoid giving legitimacy to one side of the argument or the other. I take your point (above) that repeating the long version of the name might be considered problematic too, but we can avoid that too by using "The organization" or "the group" instead. --Slp1 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to ignore other editors in favour of policy, but given the brevity of the page conflict can easily be avoided with your suggestion. I've replaced the infobox and removed CCRC. I can in principle see your concern over appearing to advocate for the "real" CCRC but practically, I think the only people who would jump to that conclusion are those who already have an opinion. Anyway, there's a DAB page and no CCRC on this one, so for now it's OK. I'd like to leave the notability tag at the top still, to encourage the addition of new third-party sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've expanded a couple of sections a bit as well using some of the better news refs provided.--Slp1 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Obscure feminist source quoted

It has been described as an example of fathers' rights group that "has appropriated a discourse of children's rights as an anti-feminist strategy".

You are certainly entitled to you POV but really, we can always find some obscure POV to support our opinions. Why are you and Slp1 rewriting the whole page as if you owned it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QPTD (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and base your comments on that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

your WP:RS reference is regarding "Reliable Sources". The "Reliable Source" is nothing more than one obscure author's opinion. People that don't understand child rights often either express their interpretation of facts from either masculist or feminist perspective when a separate child rights position is very valid. Such statements are nothing more than one person's opinion...and nothing more. I take it that if you read about the Canadian Children's Rights Council, presenting to legislative committees or government ministers about early childhood education and care, you would call them a feminist group.

I take it that any comments that support children having a father must mean that the speaker is a masculist...How obscure a position to take. It is true that some feminist's view having a father as superfluous. 67.212.21.49 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source is a reliable source, and trumps anything from the CCRC, and that "opinion" gets to stand. Did any of those committees ever comment on or notice that the CCRC presented an opinion? If so, that could be integrated into the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the CCRC when I am talking about the CanadianCRC. You can't even get the right organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.21.49 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And here is another scholarly source which makes the claim that CanCRC is part of the men's rights movement:[21] --Slp1 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Send it to me please? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You need some glasses ;-). It's linked at the end. And then take a look at p. 11 of this Bala article from the Canadian Family Law Journal,[22] and his version of Wilson's presentation and its aftermath on behalf of the Mississauga Children's Rights at the Child Custody hearings. It's really for interest only, since really there is nothing but Wilson and the falsifying on the CanCRC website to officially connect the two groups, and yet more confirmation people consider that these groups are closet fathers' rights groups. But it is incredibly fascinating and revealing too. I will try and get a copy of the original Globe and Mail article, in case it is of more use. --Slp1 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a copy of the G and Mail article about Wilson. Not surprisingly not hosted on the CanCRC website. [23] Not much use for this article, however, I don't think.--Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing concerns

Both of you clearly have your own agenda and have even used an obscure feminist source to support your opinion ( not fact ) that the Canadian Children's Rights Council is not about children's rights.

In viewing the edits both of you have done, you have even chnaged your own edits back to support the bfacts of others who told you that you were providing prejudicial editing to begin with ie CCRC. Have you read what you both have written here and in the edits. You even deleted the CRIN information about the number of members and the number of employees as you keep attacking them.

The website at www.CRIN.org states "No. Staff: 28 Membership No: 2168" and both of you have made derogatory comments about the Canadian Children's Rights Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QPTD (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, 2168 is CanCRC's CRIN membership number, not the number of members in the organization.[24] As such it is of no encyclopedic value. We could certainly discuss including the number of staff, but I would like to see some additional evidence about this to show that we are really talking about paid staff and not just some very active volunteers. This would be more in keeping the fact that the organization can't afford to make long distances calls, etc, per their website. Do you have any other source for this information? A newspaper article discussing the work/projects of some of the staff members other than Wilson? Published signed research by them? Some financial statements etc showing the amount spent on salaries? Information about where the headquarters is where they all work? There are lots of options, and I would be happy to look at any evidence that you could offer.--Slp1 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that CCRC is, despite pretentions and squawking of importance, appears to be rather unimportant, and is only inadvertently tapped by press agencies seeking a cheap quote. Their activities here, and the resulting rather critical wikipedia page, will probably end that. Yet another reason to calmly discuss rather than be being giant dicks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Misquotes on the wikipedia page and in the media

The Wiki article states "The group's president, Grant Wilson, has stated "he believes women who abandon their babies should be charged with attempted murder..." though a defense of diminished capacity could be used in cases involving post partum depression.[7] He has also called for tougher penalties, including for jail time, for mothers who deny fathers visitation rights with their children.[5]"

With regards to "he believes women who abandon their babies should be charged with attempted murder...". Read the entire CBC article. It states "Last Saturday, a couple in Saskatoon opened their back door to find an infant -- just hours old and wrapped in a comforter --in the minus-29 degree cold. They called 9-1-1. The police pleaded for the mother to come forward and by Monday, she had." Grant Wilson stated that when a baby is abandoned in -29 degree weather, which is a life threatening situation, the person abandoning the child should be charged with attempted murder.

The Wikipedia page also states "He has also called for tougher penalties, including for jail time, for mothers who deny fathers visitation rights with their children.[5]" and refers to a newspaper article. That is not what was said when Grant Wilson spoke before the federal parliamentary committee. The committee report includes the recommendation of Grant Wilson regarding the enforcement of parenting time orders. The position stated, accepted by the committee and which is one of the committees recommendations, and which can be read in The Hansard, was that parents ( not mothers) who continually disobey court parenting time orders should eventually go to jail after repeated offences. The Hansard transcripts, the committee report are all on the website of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, but Slp1 and WLU keep taking off links to that website.

Someone can change the Wiki page since you have now locked the editing. 67.212.21.49 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilson stated his opinion as a general statement, not specific to the case. So that's how we quote it. I can't comment on the other article, I think Slp1 added it. We'd need some sort of evidence that Wilson or the CCRC influenced the committee in some way to adjust it as having an impact. As is it stands as an opinion, which is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The summary of the CBC quote is fairly exact, as I think a cursory look will show. Like it or not the CBC did not choose to qualify his statement in the way you would like to do so above."But not everyone agrees that decriminalizing child abandonment is the way to go. Grant Wilson is the President of the Canadian Children's Rights Council... Grant Wilson went on to tell us that he believes women who abandon their babies should be charged with attempted murder -- not the more common charge of "Failure to provide the necessaries of life." He also said that provisions in the Criminal Code would allow for a defense of diminished capacity that could be used by the defence in cases involving post partum depression."
• Thanks for the suggestion of looking at the committee hearings. This is a primary source, and must be used with care however.[25] They confirm the Toronto Sun's focus on mothers' as the focus of Wilson's ire. After talking about how fathers go to jail for failure to pay support, Wilson launches into "I am here today to discuss the capacity of parents, usually custodial mothers, to fulfil the court orders for visitation or residency with the other parent, usually the non-custodial father. Currently there really is no enforcement. You can have the Supreme Court of Canada go out and order the children to be with the father, but the police aren't going to enforce it." and " Angry custodial parents are abusing their children by placing them in the middle of the divorce fight, and the children suffer. These parents have the capacity to comply with the court ordered access or visitation order. The anger problem is mainly with female custodial parents. Statistics show a very damaging picture for our children. Statistics in the United Kingdom state that a study was conducted by the Cheltenham Group, which surveyed 1,500 divorced and separated fathers. The respondents' statistics showed 41% of the fathers reported clinical stress, i.e., losing their jobs, seeing psychiatrists, etc. Ninety-nine percent wanted more contact with their children. Nearly half of the children have been cut off from all contact with their father within a three-year period"

Interestingly, in the government documents, Wilson bills himself as speaking on behalf of "Mississauga Children's Rights", not CanCRC at all.[26] I'm beginning to wonder if the article copies on the internet purporting to come from the Toronto Sun, have actually been doctored to include the name "CanCRC". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to check an original copy of the Toronto Sun, but likely we should. --Slp1 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And guess what, here is an apparently unchanged version the article with Wilson's designation as "Mississauga Children's Rights"[27] You guys certainly are a piece of work. You stoop very low indeed, don't you, by going as far as falsifying documents to publicize yourselves?--Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen you lose your cool like that. I think it might be WP:DNFTT time. We're not going to get anywhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I did lose my cool. Doctoring the work of others will do it every time. Anyway, there is now even more of a cast iron reason why the CanadianCRC website cannot be considered a reliable source for anything.--Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...perfect illustration of why it's crucial to vet convenience links. Mere availability of content on the internet does not satisfy the requirements of the verifiability policy, even when the content looks "real". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Especially when it looks real, as that suggests a deliberate intent to deceive the reader. In this case, they may think of it as "correcting" an error, but without knowing why the sources reported as they did, and why the modification was made, it's certainly a giant red flag about using the articles. This should really be mentioned on the spam blacklist as it's pretty much the last nail in the idea that linking to the articles is a good thing. The content can not be trusted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 07:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• about checking the sources, yes, my bad. I know really do know better. I was reworking some text originally written and sourced by Freechild, and I checked as far as I could: the doctored version is available on another websites besides just the CanCrc version, and the Toronto Sun archives are not available on Factiva, Lexis-Nexis etc.
• All the refs to Wilson's presentation to parliamentary committee describe his affiliation as president of the Mississauga CR council. These include the government documents, newspaper articles include the Globe and Mail (others available off line), and scholarly articles such as Bala and the Mann article (all linked to above). I suspect that the Miss. CR council may have renamed themselves as the CanCRC recently or are basically the same small group of people: I note that a Sheila (S-Morris?) and a Jan (JaniceMT?) are apparently involved in the MCRC too. [28]. Possibly the negative information about Wilson in the Globe and Mail and Bala articles motivated the change. A name change would explain why they changed the article to suit their new image.
• I would be interested to know if other editors see any way the Globe and Mail and Bala articles could be used as a source in a very minor way in this article. Grant Wilson is clearly the leading light in both groups. I do see some possibilities as these are great sources for showing that Wilson is seen as a father's rights activist by more sources; not suggesting at all the we include the more personal details about him.--Slp1 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no extra info on Wilson, as this is a page on an org rather than him, and I didn't read anything really strong linking him to anything we could use (without BLP and OR problems though). If you want to be bold, go ahead and I'll provide my comments after the fact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Links not working or questionable . Can someone take them off. Why the lock on editing? or is this just domination

These links don't work and they and the copy based on them should be deleted.

Mann, Ruth M. (2008). "Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas". Feminist Criminology 3: 44. ISSN 10.1177/1557085107311067 DOI: 10.1177/1557085107311067. Girard, April L. (2009). "Backlash or Equality? The Influence of Men's and Women's Rights Discourses on Domestic Violence Legislation in Ontario". Violence Against Women 15 (1): 5-23. ISSN 10.1177/1077801208328344 DOI: 10.1177/1077801208328344.MSLTT (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's 2 more citation that don't have links The copy needs to go as well as the citations. Lee-Shanok, Philip (March 31, 1998). "Custody Penalties Ripped". Toronto Sun. I just found the article at canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Toronto_Sun_custody_Penalties_Ripped_31MAR98.aspx Why didn't you link it? The quote in that article relating to the CanadianCRC was --- Grant Wilson, president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, also called for tougher penalties. "Children have a right to see both parents as judged by a court," he said.--- not what you wrote on the Wiki page. You attributed aa statement made by another person ion the artcile to the CanadianCRC. Why the falsification of quotes?

This link doesn't work and the copy in the article based on it should be deleted. No citation. McIlroy, Anne (December 5, 1998). "Child Custody: The great divide". Globe and Mail. http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/xxxgm981205.htm.old. Retrieved on 2009-05-27.

The link citation 2 is wrong. The copy reads ---The organization states that their website is the most visited website in Canada on the issues of children's rights and responsibilities.-- and the link is to an article on spanking.MSLTT (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer your points:

• Per Reliable sources and verifiability references do not have to be electronic; for some of them a trip to the library is required to verify content. Thanks for letting us know that the courtesy link to the Globe and Mail article no longer works; this is somewhat curious as it worked a couple of weeks ago and has apparently now been removed. I have changed the link to a copy on the wayback machine, but as above the reference could stand without it, since the information is verifiable f.rom a published paper source
• The canadiancrc website has been blacklisted because its members have been spamming copyright infringing links throughout WP. In addition, there have been clear evidence that the articles hosted there have been manipulated by changing the contents, making them obviously unreliable even as convenience links (see above for details)
• The article on Spanking in the Toronto Sun mentions Wilson's claim that the website is the 2nd most visited in the Canada. As a secondary source it is to be preferred as a source.

--Slp1 (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate misquote from CBC The Current radio show

Wikipedia rticle states ----The group's president, Grant Wilson, has stated "he believes women who abandon their babies should be charged with attempted murder..." --- but that is in reference to women who abandon babies in -29 degree weather which is life threatening. Basically it is a reference to abandoning a baby in a place that he/she may die, but you left that out to make the quote look bad.MSLTT (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you might want to get the CBC to rewrite their website. That's not what they say there: they don't qualify Wilson's statement in any way.[29]--Slp1 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit [30] adds a qualifier that I do not believe is verifiable from the source given. While the leaving of the child in Saskatoon in the cold was certainly the impetus for the discussion on the Current, the segment,[31] including the interview of Mr. Wilson, focussed on the issue of child abandonment in general. You can listen to the 75 seconds of his contribution at 11:30 minutes in. Wilson talks about how some women abandon their children for selfish reasons not because of mental health problems and then says "I think you need to make sure that you've got some very harsh penalties for just dropping off a baby or putting them in a dumpster, or leaving them, as I said, abandoned well after the child is born. It seems there's this inherent prejudice against prosecuting mothers for their actions." Anna-Maria Tremonte then says "He went on to tell us that he believes that women who abandon their babies should be charged with attempted murder not the more common charge of failure to provide the necessities of life. He also pointed out that provisions in the Criminal Code would allow for a defense of diminished capacity and that could be used by the defence in cases involving post partum depression.". I don't see any evidence from either the interview or the summary on the CBC website that his suggestion was limited to this particular case, or indeed limited to life-threatening situations for the child. --Slp1 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What does it take to listen to a RAM file? I'm also dubious about including a claim that this was a one-off statement based solely on a single incident; Wilson seems rather zealous for such a limited, nuanced comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I play those files with RealPlayer. As to your second comment, what is slightly intriguing is that CanCRC's April 2006 (ie pre the SK case) their position statement on child abandonment (can't add link because of the spamfilter) while arguing against safe haven legislation says that "In Canada, our researchers couldn't find evidence of any babies left in circumstances that would deliberately cause their death save and except for a handful of cases over the last 40 years and no child died". It suggests that they accept that almost no mothers have abandoned their kids in truly life-threatening ways, and makes it more likely that Wilson's comments (and more importantly per WP:PSTS the CBC summary of what he said) at face value. --Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Replace the infobox and we're fine. I really don't care about this article anymore, and am discouraged when committed editors seek to unravel articles with significant histories. I have had concerns about this article in the past, and have added my share of tags to it. However, I've worked this one too long, and hereby divest myself from it. • Freechild'sup? 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See above for my response to why I think the infobox makes things complicated. I'm sorry if you think I have been unravel the article. I do think that at this point it needs to be expanded, and we could properly use their website as a source to summarize their concerns. But doing this the problem of their notability remains, unfortunately. --Slp1 (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity does not mean it is correct, and we need reliable, independent sources to clarify. Removal per WP:PROVEIT is totally warranted, as is the verification of appropriate controversial information per WP:RS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You stated above that anyone associated with Canadian Children's Rights Council "has zero right to determine what is on this page." It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. everyone has the right to edit any page. What is your justification for making that statement? QPTD (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V, and probably most other policies and guidelines on wikipedia. Those are my justifications. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)