Talk:Canadian Federation of Students/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
POV Nomination
it's unfortunate that is has come to this but i've nominated the article to be reveiwed/checkedDr sean chronic RSX 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The POV Check template is not for disputes, as such, I have removed it. If you have further questions, please consult Wikipedia:POV check Also, for future reference, new conversations should be started at the bottom of the page, not the top. - pm_shef 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- OkDr sean chronic RSX 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So what is the pov problem? When you nominate, you have to list the specific issues. Ardenn 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect information?
Apologies to other users if I have in some way violated internal 'rules' governing edits to postings; however, I am unclear why the correction of errors requires 'debating'. This website seems to be established in a rather backwards fashion. Incorrect information can be posted and those who wish to provide correct information must fight to have the changes made?
That being said, there are a number of inaccuracies that should be corrected--assuming of course that whoever is protecting the original posting isn't doing so for political gain and is "willing" to allow the "article" to be corrected.
a. The proposal to hold a "referendum to leave CFS" at Ryerson was not deferred but in fact rescinded. b. The student "governments" as you call them (student associations don't govern) that held votes to terminate their relationships with the other members of CFS did not do so because of differences over the Gulf War. It was, in part, because they wanted to establish an organisation that had different organisational structures. c.Undergrads at Carleton University have been members (consistently) of CFS since the early 1980s. d. Undergraduate students at the University of Toronto became members of the organisation for the first time a couple of years ago. They did not vote to leave in the 90s and then re-join. e. Grad students at Queen's did not vote to leave in the 90s and then re-join as a result of the formation of the CASA (as the article implies).
I hope these comments are helpful.
- a. From what I've read, it was simply defered. But I'd be open to any evidence that you have to back up your claim. b. It doesn't matter the name. Some are associations, some are unions. c. Why did CU host the winds of change conference then? And where does it imply they ever left CFS? d. From what I can tell, I agree, U of T only joined CFS 2 years ago. e. How does it imply this? --Spinboy 06:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Here's what I know of the above;
- Don't know about Ryerson
- Student associations, at least in Canada, do in fact govern. They collect fees, often manage buildings, offer programs, and represent students. More importantly however, the CFS/CASA split was over a number of reasons, with the gulf war being one of the prominent ones. The Gulf War was certainly not the only reason, but it did play a factor (along with governance, political ties, and political slant).
- Spinboy is right, Carleton hosted the Winds of Change Conference resulting in the founding of CASA. That being said, they may not have actually joined the new organization after the conference. - pm_shef 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
POV
I don't feel this article is neutral. It states facts that are unsubstantiated, such as that tuition fees are skyrocketing, and that their actions caused fees to be frozen, if you can call it that. Spinboy 04:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
=/ Tuition may not be rising rapidly in your province, but it is in many others. The goal of CFS is not only to battle rising tuition fees, but also to lower them and improve how public Post-secondary institutions are run.
Take a look at Canadian Alliance of Students Associations and you might notice how NOT NPOV it is by your standards.
What I added was simply some events that took place, the cause and the result of the actions. Nothing personal. — LegolasGreenleaf 05:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Show me your numbers? And how exactly CFS contributed concretely to these "tuition freezes" that you claim. Where is your proof? And I mean other than a walkout that produces no concrete proof. Spinboy 05:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Didn't I say that tuition in BC have doubled in the past 3-4 years?!?
Exactly how CFS contributed to the tuition fees freezes would be too numerous to be listed here, but some main activities would include holding demonstrations and lobbying for by-laws to reduce tuition.
Concrete proof? Truthfully I do not have any. But you cannot just go on to say that what I have there are personal opinions. If you truly want to get technical, then on most pages in wiki you can put a NPOV sign.
One thing you have to know that by voicing your opinions as a voter the politicians would have to listen, for in CFS alone there are half a million potential votes in favor of the party that favor the choices of students. Half a million is a significant number in Canadian political context. — LegolasGreenleaf 05:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- But as we all know, not eveveryone votes for the same party, weather or not they are members of CFS (which is mandatory at member schools, by the way.) And demonstrations/lobbying is great, but that doesn't belong on a wikipedia page. It belongs on their own website. And before you point out that CASA schools have their members join mandatorily too, CASA is an alliance of student groups, not students. So it's the group that is the member, not the students. Spinboy 05:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
lol what are you trying to say here?
Ya I agree that not everyone in a group will have the same opinions, but still what CFS organized is a part of their legacy, and putting that onto this page only informs people about what they did. Isn't wiki supposed to be a encyclopedia about everything? I try to be neutral in all of my posts and refrain from personal POV.
You cannot sincerely say that the changes I made on this page are biased opinions. — LegolasGreenleaf 06:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I more think that it's something that belongs on their own website rather than Wikipedia. What they organized may be part of their legacy, but then why not contribute an entire section of it's history? About all their demonstrations, etc and perhaps even the percieved impact? This way it is more historical and covers not just the one event. That is where I think it looses it's neutrality. It's covering one specific event and making un-backed up claims. But turn it into a history section on all their "days of action" and I think that might certainly be more beneficial. Spinboy 07:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
New POV
The Article is not neutral and is not following wikipedia NPOV policies as well as being used as a means to defame and slander certain persons and or students' unions Dr sean chronic RSX 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's verified and cited, however, if you feel the wording isn't as neutral as could be, feel free to re-word it, without removing the entire content. It doesn't slander anyone. Please don't remove factual information. Ardenn 12:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article isn't a "feel good" of CFS, as wikipedia is not censored. Ardenn 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Even though Wikipedia is not censored I maintain my stance that this article is breaking at least 2 two wikipedia policies NPOV and after further readingSoapbox That is why I dispute the Neutrality of the article. Dr sean chronic RSX 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I must disagree. Those paragraphs aren't breaking any rules. Ardenn 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to draw attention speciffically to History and Current Issues
"A 1998 article in the Simon Fraser University student newspaper The Peak accused CFS of being corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centred, and a form of clique, with their people getting jobs in the NDP or Liberal governments.[6] Even though there is references there are links to documents pushing a point of veiw that the CFS is "corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centred, and a form of clique" Thats a biased opinion by a student Newspaper that historically hates the CFS
In 1998 Current executive director of CFS-Services Philip Link (former National Director 1990) was previously charged for assaulting (but acquited) Miss Lana Many-Grey-Horses in 1998 after she allegedly criticised the CFS for not doing enough to aid aboriginal students [7]. Mr Lank was also convicted of assault in December of 1989. The CFS has investigated charges of racism against Mr Link 8. the second citation is not so bad but the Ciatation to the peak article is yet again pushing a hostile point of view and quite defamitory against Mr. Link who was aquitted. further more it is not a current issue nor is it helpful to the overall quality of the article. If people wish to find ways to say the CFS is corrupt, bloated, ontario-centered a form of clique, protects criminals and allows misoginy they are Free to start a Blog and post as much as they wish. Wikipedia is not The Smoking Gun
http://www.livejournal.com http://www.xanga.com http://www.blogspot.com http://www.myspace.com
Dr sean chronic RSX 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not, but it is factual and sourced. It's not POV or soapbox. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool. It's meant to be a balanced article with arguments from both sides. Ardenn 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your logic is flawed. Wikipedia isn't meant to have a feel-good article about CFS. That's not what we're about. It's meant to be a blanaced article about CFS's strengths and weaknesses, including corruption, etc so long as it is verified and cited, which those items are. Ardenn 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Than prehaps a new section titled controversy should be created would that work?Dr sean chronic RSX 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pointing out how many "controversies" they have surrounding them is soapboxical. Simply labeling the incidents for what they are is the most neutral way. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
- "[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales Ardenn 05:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
History
Where is the proof to back up the claims of those results? Spinboy 03:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Serious 05:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Tuition fee freezes are not given by governments out of the goodness of their hearts. In Ontario, it took intense lobbying on the part of the Federation and its member schools to push the Liberals to put it in their election platform. During the campaign they threatened to back off that promise and had to publically state in a press release their commitment to legislate such a freeze. In other provinces similar efforts were necessary to secure such a freeze, even in provinces run by supposedly student-friendly NDP governments. Of course getting concrete proof is more difficult. Governments rarely grant any lobby organization credit for any of its policies. They try to take most credit for themselves as well as the fact that the Liberals try to placate both OUSA and CFS and singling one group would be seen as compromising from their point of view. Nonetheless, I think it is fair to say that CFS's work was the most impactful in influencing the election platform and the legislation of the Liberal government. It is just as legitimate to say this as it is to say "In its short history, CASA has developed an unparalleled rapport and profile with decision-makers and policy-makers within the ranks of the federal government, opposition parties, and the post-secondary eductaion sector"--which is also a comment that is not based on hard evidence.
inaccuracies about Queens, York, and Ryerson
I removed that section of the article for accuracy reasons. Queens undergrads have never been members of the federation. They did recently join OUSA but that has no bearing on a relationship with CFS. Please see the Queen's University Society of Graduate and Professional Students website as proof (http://www.sgps.ca and scroll to bottom and see Local 27 banner). Second, a right wing coalition called "Progress Not Politics" did want to leave the Federation and began setting that in motion but in a recent election that ticket was swept out of power by the UNITY team led by Omari Mason (see election results http://www.yorku.ca/studgovt/results.php, see article in Excalbur http://www.excal.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=2) which is in support of the Federation and is committed to work with them and stay in the organization. Lastly, the Ryerson SAC initially passed a motion to have a referendum but after a overwhelming condmenation of this motion at RyeSAC's AGM the board of directors overturned its decision and decided not to hold a referendum (see Eyeopener http://www.theeyeopener.com/storydetail.cfm?storyid=1520)
I would strongly suggest Spinboy, that you are cautious about putting things on before knowing the facts. For someone who has put up almost all the canadian student union entries you seem a little behind the news.Serious 18:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll accept that. I didn't see the follow up article. My mistake. I would strong suggest, Serious, that you get off your high horse, and let's try to treat each other with a little respect and civility. That way these articles can be neutral and factual for the readers. I rather suspect you work for CFS, or one of their member unions. Spinboy 19:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually I don't but I am a supporter of the Federation, as you are clearly a partisan of CASA. I am not intending to be on a high horse, but I do have scruples when it comes to an encyclopedic website, and when people (and you aren't the only one Spinboy) make statements that are not based on factual evidence or indeed contrary to actuality (and i understand somethings are debatable) it rubs me the wrong way. So if I came off as pompous I apologize, but I don't apologize about my meticulousness.Serious 21:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
New Additions Concerning Criticisms
I have a problem with this paragraph and believe that it should either be removed or cited somehow. You say many students get arrested at CFS demonstrations. Firstly, only on very few occassions has anyone been arrested at a CFS called action. The term "many" implies significant numbers. Federation demonstrations are open and broad and peaceful and there is no need to warn people about impeding violence which never happens. If you can find some objective articles (ie not CASA's 50 reasons to leave the Fed) about CFS day of actions where there were "many" arrests then site them. Also, I know for a fact that CFS Ontario has met with over 80 MPPs this year leading up to the Rae Review Panel on Post Secondary Education, including sitting down with Bob Rae, the Ministry of Training, and other members of the panel. In Toronto, they meet regularly with members of City Council on student transit issues (helping secure a discounted pass for university and college students) and in Ottawa regularly make presentations to budget subcommittees. So although some may accuse the Federation of only protesting that accusation is not based on fact but rather inuendo. If you can rewrite this paragraph instead of me simply removing the section that would be best.Serious 21:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
External Links Purely Inflamatory
I removed the external link because they are purely there to back up a biased point of view. We could list dozens of articles praising CFS, and conversely we would put a bunch of negative articles on the CASA site bashing that organization. If you wanted to include one news article (possibly the USC lawsuit one) that may be fine but don't use the site to push a criticism of the organization. A few points of contention are fine and balanced but too may defeat the purpose of an encylopedic website.Serious 04:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's cool with me, I removed the links from the CASA article for the same reason. --Spinboy 05:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry guys but wikipedia does accept POV external links. I think the number on this article was excessive but that doesn't mean there cant be a handful on both sides. AndyL 05:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, no problem here, so long as any articles affected have a proper amount of balance content wise. As I like to say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I put all those links there, but I can easily write a paragraph on each one and put it in the article. --Spinboy 06:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Balance means putting in major criticisms as well as major laudits, not turning the article into a lengthy anti-CFS essay so exercise restraint. If you turn each critical external link into a paragraph about 80% of the article will consist of anti-CFS criticisms which would not be balanced, would it? Two or three laudatory links and two or three critical external links should suffice for anything that isn't a major article (and this isn't a major article)AndyL 06:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Lawsuit
U of Alberta, the one referenced in the link I provided, isn't a member of OUSA or CASA. Which other SU's are involved in the suit? --Spinboy 06:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Queen's AMS (OUSA), UWO (OUSA and CASA), UBC (CASA) so that's, what, three out of four? Five of five if you count the University of Alberta which is a founding member of CASA and was in CASA when it joined the suit. AndyL 06:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I re-wrote to say many were members of CASA, since U of Alberta is neither CASA or OUSA. Since CFS has no Alberta branch, they don't belong to a rival organization. I don't think it's fair to say other rival organizations, I've never known the OUSA to be a CFS rival.
U of Alberta may have been a member at the time, but they aren't a member of CASA now. --Spinboy 06:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest that we cannot seem to agree on this, I'll put up a request for mediation. --Spinboy 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, it's accurate to say four of the five are current or former members of CASA. is it not? AndyL 07:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of saying weather or not they are members of CASA matters. Maybe instead we should list the students assoc's that are suing them, and let their own articles tend to their affiliations? --Spinboy 08:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well as was mentioned earlier, U of A was a member of CASA when the lawsuit was initiated and when they signed on. One of the reasons they are still on the suit although the student union is no longer a member of CASA is because the executives who signed onto lawsuit agreed to cover the costs of the suit even if they dropped out. Secondly, there is are two member locals of CFS in Alberta, the Alberta College of Art and Design and the graduates at the University of Calgary, so yes there is competition between the CFS and CASA in the province. Thirdly, the lawsuit is largely driven by AMICUS the General Managers association that networks GMs across the country and have used their influence to pursuade these four schools to joijn the lawsuit.Serious 05:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"I don't see the point of saying weather or not they are members of CASA matters." The question isn't whether or not you "see the point" but whether you have a good reason not to mention their affiliation. So far you haven't come up with one reason. AndyL 07:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see a good reason --to-- mention it. --Spinboy 20:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's not what I asked. It's factual information and is of interest. Unless you have a good reason not to include it then there's nothing to discuss. AndyL 01:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Members
You shouldn't remove the list of members who have left CFS. Spinboy 04:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You can't have linkage between articles, sorry (ie you can't remove something from one article because of a disagreement in another article). My objection is not to listing schools that have left CFS but to listing schools that have left CFS *without* also having a full list of CFS members and/or schools that have joined CFS - I was quite clear about that.
The CASA article has a list of "founding" membes and a list of "current" members which demonstrates the groups growth plus a list of members who have left. If you want to list the third in the CFS article you need to balance that out with the other facts, otherwise you're creating a biased picture. I"m sorry spinboy but your pro-CASA POV pushing is not only tiresome, it's getting irrational. If you want to have a list of schools that have left CFS then also put in a full list of CFS members in order to provide balance. The fact that you want to list negative information about CFS without also listing the positive suggests that you are not interested in NPOV editing but instead have your own agenda. AndyL 05:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And your pro-CFS POV pushing is tiresome and irrational as well. --Spinboy 05:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Spinboy, if you look at my edit history you'll see that I've added both positive and negative information on CFS. For instance, I added sentences that stated that a number of schools left CFS in the earlyh 1990s because they felt the organisation focussed too much on "non-student" issues such as the Gulf War. You, on the other hand, have added only negative information about CFS to the CFS article and positive information about CASA to the CASA article and now, since you can't bear to say anything good about CFS you prefer to remove factual information from the CASA article. AndyL 05:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Being on the correct talk page, my concerns:
- - "A 1998 article in the Simon Fraser University student newspaper accused CFS of being corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centered, and a form of clique, with their people getting jobs in the NDP or Liberal governments."
- - Membership list issues.
- - Wording: "In 1999 the University Students' Council at the University of Western Ontario filed suit against the CFS in relation to the ownership by its subsidiarly, CFS-Services, of Travel Cuts. [5] (http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/1998/September/18/default.htm) The lawsuit has since been joined by CASA schools University of British Columbia, and University of Alberta and unaffiliated Queen's University."
--Spinboy 05:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you stated what your specific problems with those passages are. AndyL 13:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can see the problem with the first one, at least. Although not strictly speaking [Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|weasely], the significance of a single article written seven years ago in a student newspaper is certainly debatable. It also appears at first glance to have been put there to further a political agenda, although I certainly can't speak to the original editor's intentions. As for the Travel Cuts lawsuit, I fail to see the problem with that. There is a lawsuit ongoing, and it is a major issue for the CFS. So what if you don't like it? If you (spinboy) have a suggestion on rewording it, say so. However, just stating you have a concern without elabourating isn't particularly helpful. Haunti 17:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The Travel Cuts lawsuit isn't the problem. At least not with me. I'm the one who put it in. Tagging what organizations the unions suing CFS is a problem. It's up to the article of the individual union to say who they are affilaited with, not that paragraph. --Spinboy 19:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'll restore the NPOV tag. I'm still waiting for some justification for the "Factual inaccuracy" complaint. AndyL 17:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tagging what organizations the unions suing CFS is a problem. It's up to the article of the individual union to say who they are affilaited with, not that paragraph.
Assertion is not argument. What is your argument against identifying the affiliations of those student unions suing CFS? I can see no reason for not including this factual information. The fact that it is included in the articles on the individual schools is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for not including the info in this article. We dont' expect users to check out every link in an article. AndyL 22:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
I still object to the listing of orgs that left in the CASA article, and not here. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
UPEI
The CFS website lists UPEI as a member. A google search reveals a 2004 article stating that the UPEI student council was considering leaving CFS but no later article indicating that they had done so, certainly none stating there had been a referendum and its results. Until we have some definitive proof that UPEI has left CFS I don't think we can say it has. The precedent is the CASA article where Spinboy insisted the article could not state that a university (can't remember if it was Manitoba or Saskatchwan) had left CASA until we could cite something other than a discussion board entry verifying this had occured. If Spinboy insisted on such criteria for a school leaving CASA, he should have the same standard in this case. AndyL 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
disability rights and CFS
I have two related comments. I find the term "accessible" confusing because clearly CFS advocates mean "financially accessible" whereas the disability rights community uses it to mean something else. I think it should be modified. Also, not a single word about the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS) which, as far as I can tell, has a healthy relationship with CFS.--Ravi
- Many Students' Unions have a disabilities liason and usually do work on the local level, CFS has a disabilites costituency caucus that meets at General Meetings to discuss issues facing disabled students. Dr sean chronic RSX 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
History Section
My concern with the history section is that it unnecessarily contains back and forth arguments from CFS proponents and opponents. CASA article's history section contains mostly NPOV materials or references to the POV of the organization, whereas the CFS article's history section already touches on the "controversy" surrounding the CFS. I think the section should be edited to be at least on par with the same section in the CASA article. Tony Kao 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way but too many freaks, geeks and weirdos hound this page for that to happenDr sean chronic RSX 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Statement of Claim is it possible?
I feel that the current version of the page is defamatory and could open up Wikipedia to being sued for allowing defamitory content on it Dr sean chronic RSX 23:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The paragraph about philip link i beleive he could sue for slander if he wanted to the language is dodgy not place specfic blame but I am quite sure considering the paragraphs sources are what they are its gives an impression of the type of POV the poster of paragraph wished the readers should feel because there is no counter sources Just negative onesDr sean chronic RSX 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's cited, and factual. I honesetly don't see a problem there. Ardenn 00:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The paragraph about philip link i beleive he could sue for slander if he wanted to the language is dodgy not place specfic blame but I am quite sure considering the paragraphs sources are what they are its gives an impression of the type of POV the poster of paragraph wished the readers should feel because there is no counter sources Just negative onesDr sean chronic RSX 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm 100% in agreement with Ardenn on this one. There's nothing "dodgy" about the language, and it (unlike some other parts of the article) seems to be written in a totally NPOV and factual manner. I really can't imagine where this "feeling" of the section being defamatory is coming from. - pm_shef 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are alot of inacuracies in the source material and I am in fact considering contacting Mr. Link Myself to get his side of the story not the peaksDr sean chronic RSX 03:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can contact him all you want, but as a party to the dispute, any information that comes directly of the conversation would not be considered a valid source - pm_shef 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Travel Cuts
Is it not only 74% owned by the Federation and 26% between USC (UWO) UASU (Alberta) AMS (UBC) and I think two other? FullSmash26 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Its True Dr sean chronic RSX 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Was that the result of the lawsuit? - pm_shef 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 26 percent of ownership was given to the plaintiffs they are creating a seperate entity that gets to appoint 2 board members to the travel cuts board. But the Federation is still own the bigger chunkDr sean chronic RSX 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Student Health Network
Can someone verify that its offered through blue cross, because I always thought student health plan is offered through a company called Green-ShieldDr sean chronic RSX 04:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whoooooops, you're right. Sorry about that, I got the two confused. - pm_shef 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
POV
My issue is from: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone. Ardenn 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
IF YOU CAN NOT SPELL PROPERLY OR USE GRAMMAR CORRECTLY, YOU SHOULD NOT BE POSTING INFORMATION ON A RESOURCE SITE!! IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT 'FACTS' ARE CORRECT WHEN A BASIC GRASP OF EITHER OF CANADA'S OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IS SO OBVIOUSLY LACKING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger97 (talk • contribs) --
Language
Can someone who has better skills with the language known as french, translate this page :)Dr sean chronic RSX 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Uncited Accusation
Please stop reverting edits on accusations that have no basis in reality. Has anyone produced evidence that a lawsuit has been filed against the UPEI students union? Is there any evidence that lawyers letters have been sent to anyone other than Mr. Gregory? You can't just make up accusations and put them in an encyclopedia. You're not Stephen Colbert.
"Sam Rahimi, former VP External of the Students' Administrative Council, was quoted as saying "These people are worse than the Church of Scientology" after receiving a cease and desist letter. Student newspapers, most recently The Eyeopener at Ryerson, have also been served with similar letters." If you can't provide a source for these quotes and accusations then please don't post them in the article. If this did happen then it shouldn't be hard to find a citation for it.
-- I don't think it would be that hard to find citations for these claims. I'm actively invovled in issues surrounding the CFS and I think it would be inappropriate for me to be editing the article, but I can attest that they exist if one looks for the information. 24.68.210.73 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
USSU
The USSU is not a member of the CFS, as per order of the Sask Court of Appeal, it is no longer a controversy. Citation should be online in the next couple of days, at which point I will update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullSmash26 (talk • contribs) 10:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
CFS Membership Listing
The membership listing that appears on this page is relevant given the fact that the Canadian Federation of Students is a large, national organization, comprised of student unions from across Canada. Listing its membership in this circumstance is no different from listing the membership for groups such as NATO, APEC, OPEC, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwahahax (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:WAX, but aside from that, it was large and bulky, and it added nothing to the article. It really took away from it and was an eyesore. GreenJoe 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- While I do not entirely agree, I take your point. Should we then remove Student Unions that have left CFS. It would seem largely irrelevant and out of context without a listing of current members. Bwahahax 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Days of action
I removed the bit about the days of action from the article, because they're held every year, and thus not particularly notable. If it was a one-time thing, I might reconsider. GreenJoe 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Day of action is not an annual event. They have occurred in 1996, 2000, 2001. 2005 and 2007, I believe. The claim that they're an annual event is a popular misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.223.51 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Section about Staff
I took this out because of serious lack of neutrality. I'm not about to re-write it but an encyclopedia article is not supposed to have back handed comments in brackets (for example "(and less self-interested)"). Not to mention that there are many assumptions (a majority of passive / unwitting participants ) that are simply unfounded (where is the research, where are the numbers? where is the proof?). I'd also make it much more clear who is saying what instead of having "according to some" or "suggested to some." It is vague and can be misleading. The first paragraph does it right : "A 1998 article in the Simon Fraser University student newspaper The Peak accused CFS of being corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centred, and a form of clique, with their people getting jobs in the NDP or Liberal governments." That is neutral. The section I erased is not.
(this is what was erased) "The longtime involvement in CFS of Link (and of other professional staffers whose students status has long since diminished or lapsed but whose longevity and age affords them great influence), when contrasted with the passive or even unwitting participation of most of the fee paying membership of CFS, has suggested to some that while Canadian, the Canadian student movement as articulated by CFS is neither much of a movement nor primarily comprised of students [1] [2] [3], instead being a student-funded vehicle which has in the past been easily captured by a small number of national players. The presumption that the mass of post-secondary students in Canada with their disparate economic and social circumstances could or would ever coalesce around any issue more important (and less self-interested) than tuition is according to some opinion a fiction, a fiction which is nevertheless necessary as a founding myth of CFS [4] [5]."
Silentpat 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
changes to history, BC decision and referendum tactics
"CASA today has 18 member organizations." ---not relevant to the CFS
"In addition, CFS has been accused of being too close to the New Democratic Party (NDP). [6] Conversely, CASA has been accused of being too close to the Liberal Party of Canada.[7]" I moved this from history to controversy as it's an accusation that has lasted years and is not really a historical event.
"A BC provincial government decision in 2001 to include CASA as well as CFS representatives (who had previously had exclusive access) on the government's education committee was challenged on the floor of the legislature by an unsuspecting government backbench MLA who had been fed misleading information suggesting that CFS was somehow losing access [8]." The only thing on that page about the CFS is a question from H. Bloy and an answer from S.Bond that explains that the governement was "opening up the process to all students in BC and will not exclude studens form the CFS". There is nothing about the MLA being mislead or about the MLA being unsuspecting. A better source should be used if this is to be included in the entry.
"Controversy has emerged repeatedly over the referendum tactics employed in CFS affiliation/deaffiliation referendums, particularly as regards the pro-CFS side [9], as well as regarding the tactics used to implement and maintain CFS-run programs on campuses [10]." The joeycoleman.ca link is broken and the straight.com article does not discuss any "tactics" used by the cfs. It states that people who were loyal to the CFS would have prefered the CFS health plan to the Gallivan option and now the people who were partial to the CFS plan are on the board of directors. That is hardly "repeated controversy over the implementation and maintain of CFS-run programs." Again, I'm not disputing the claims-- they could be right, they could be false-- but they need to be well cited from a reputable source. It needs to be explicit information or many examples before you can claim something like "repeated controversy." Silentpat 08:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The link on joeycoleman.ca (my website) is broken, however, the decision has been placed online here: http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/judgments/2006/QB2006/2006skqb462.pdf FullSmash26 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Edits to Current Issues and parts of other sections:
Removed university of Western Ontario issue since it is about a decade old (therefore not current) and has been settled (therefore not current).
Removed the University of Toronto issue since it seems like it is an old membership news story. Also, the part dealing with the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance seems in no way to be relevant to the CFS.
Removed the Memorial University issue as it is 5 years old and not current or relevant to the CFS.
Removed the Ryerson Student's Union issue as it is not an issue of the CFS. Internal decisions of the Ryerson Student Union seem not to be relevant to an article about the CFS.
Removed the Lakehead University Students Union issue for the same reason as removing the Ryerson issue.
Removed the Rock the Vote issue as it is 2 years old and seems to be irrelevant to the CFS.
Removed the Bob Rae issue as it is 4 years old and is not an issue unless there is reason to list all of the decisions by the government on PSE issues that are in-line or out of line with CFS campaigns and policy. Also, the campaign seems overly specific to CFS-Ontario and irrelevant to this CFS article.
Edited the Saskatchewan Students' Union issue for accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocandu1976 (talk • contribs)
- I reverted your edits. You shouldn't be removing sourced information. That's vandalism. GreenJoe 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
References to CASA:
Edited out the reference to CASA as it is about CASA not the Canadian Federation of Students. It also continues the idea that CASA exists solely to be the right-wing student movement whereas the CFS is the left-wing student movement. Members of CASA and the CFS disagree with this and there is nothing referenced in the policies or actions of either organization to backup this claim. In fact, the CFS has (as referenced) been able to get what it lobbies for from Conservative governments (national and provincial) as well as Liberal governments both national and provincial. Hardly something that happens when you have partisanship in the actions of the organizations.
Edited and amalgamated the sections referring to The Peak:
The Peak editorial position has been critical of the CFS for many years. In the last few years there have been regular editorial articles critical of the CFS and it makes more sense to have them listed together instead of listing each one separately. Also, much of the information in the articles has either been shown to be false and misleading.
References to Mr. Link and Mr. Gregory:
I am unsure why there are many references to individual staff members of the CFS or bloggers. This article is about the Canadian Federation of Students, not about Mr. Link or Mr. Gregory. I have removed the content that is solely around accusations and (what seem to be) rumors about Mr. Link from this page since all of the bad things stated about Mr. Link seem to be only accusations in editorial pages of the student press. I have also removed the statements that are of direct reference to Mr. Gregory. There seems to be no reason to mention a blogger (even if they have a distinct anti-cfs editorial stance). I would suggest links to their sites under External Links or to their own wiki entry.
Last time I checked, editorial fact-checking of most student papers is not that high. I am not saying that this is necessarily something about the student press that needs to change but I question the ability to cite personal blogs and student paper editorials as wikipedia references. People are accused of many things on blogs, that doesn't make it newsworthy and it should not appear on wikipedia entries about organizations that they happen to be employed at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocandu1976 (talk • contribs)
- If it's cited and referenced, it belongs in the article. We don't want CFS propaganda. It's meant to be a balanced, factual article. Not as an ad for CFS. GreenJoe 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
GreenJoe: The last edit to the services section is relevant and factual information. I think the last paragraph in Controversy section is also a little off. I can try to edit out some of the text in the services section as to not dwarf everything else.
I also made a minor edit to the history section: "The split between the CFS and CASA has created controversy." This is in fact not true. There has never been a 'split' between CFS and CASA as if it happened suddenly in one incident. CASA was formed out of dissident SU's over a period of a few years in the early '90s.
Also, the sentence:
"A 1998 article in the Simon Fraser University student newspaper The Peak accused CFS of being corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centred, and a form of clique, with their people getting jobs in the NDP or Liberal governments.[11]"
Refers to an article that cites no sources, no reports, no authorities... It is merely an Opinion piece written over 12 years ago in a college newspaper. That is not a very credible source.
Also : "In 1998, current executive director of CFS-Services Philip Link (formerly National Director in 1990) was charged for assaulting (but acquitted) a female CFS executive member after she allegedly criticised the CFS for not doing enough to aid aboriginal students.[12] Mr Link was charged with and convicted of assault in December of 1989 for choking a student with a camera strap. The CFS has investigated charges of racism against Mr Link.[13] Although only briefly a university student himself, Link's colourful and controversial career as a professional organizer in the Canadian student movement dates back a quarter century and has included stops at Okanagan College, Langara College, CFS-BC and the national offices.[12]"
This paragraph has no relevance to the CFS. Also all of its references are deadlinks so it should not be included. As the paragraph stands now it is an unfounded accusation and it could be defamatory if this text is not properly and carefully edited. To be fair and credible, it really has got to go.
GreenJoe, I think the complete reversal of the services section is a bit heavy-handed. A lot of people reference an online encyclopedia for basic information. Well this is basic factual information that does not advocate one way or another for anyone or anything. It's the truth isn't it?
"The CFS has been accused of being too close to the [[New Democratic Party]" I got rid of this section in Controversy as it the link is dead. In light of this, I'm not sure the other remaining sentence in the paragraph is relevant ("Conversely, CASA has been accused of being too close to the Liberal Party of Canada") I have deleted this. This article really needs to be revamped. I think the CASA wiki page could also be beefed up a little too.
this: In recent years the CFS has also been accused of being overly litigious and attempting to suppress criticism. Some student newspapers, most recently The Eyeopener at Ryerson, have been served with letters from the Federation's lawyers. A few bloggers have received cease and desist letters. Most recently, the blogger Titus Gregory received a letter related to the same story as the The Eyeopener"
has been replaced with this more accurate and neutral paragraph: "The Ryerson University student newspaper The Eyeopener has published editorials accusing the CFS of being overly litigious. It recently alleges that the CFS suppresses criticism of bloggers through cease and desist letters"
Propaganda
I reverted edits this time because of propaganda namely the stuff about the ISIC card, StudentSaver Card, Dayplanner service, etc. It's not needed in the article. GreenJoe 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Joe, you have reverted several of my edits in several sections and have so far been scarcely able to justify them. Stop being so heavy handed and instead enter into dialog. I am going to go ahead and re-add the services section without deleting the first paragraph (it actually compliments that paragraph nicely). I'll say this again, IT IS NOT PROPAGANDA, it is reference material and please note that this is an online commons and an encyclopedia and I'll ask you to respect that please. It happens to be of neutral language and factual, so you reverting this section is simply vandalism and it's also just plain dishonest of you. I'll also remind you to refrain from removing neutral material that has valid sources. Listing the services an organization provides to members is pertinent information and if you poke your head around wikipedia, you'll notice hundreds upon thousands of wikipages that do so.
- Remember that wiki has a 3dr rule that I shouldn't have to remind you of.
Reference to CASA in history section has been removed. It is irrelevant. CFS is not defined by what CASA is as they are two different organizations existing separately. Nocandu1976 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You guys both have points. This really needs to be worked out on the talk pages until an agreement is reached. I can see the article needing an update, things are always happening. FullSmash26 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your edits were reverted. GreenJoe 03:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Protected
The page is now protected for 5 days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Services section:- It was incomplete and I only tried to flesh it out. However, GreenJoe simply called it propaganda and undid my edits without any discussion. If you see my lengthy comments you'll see that Joe didn't even respond.
Furthermore, CFS Services comprises over half of the CFS organization itself, so for reasons of necessity and fairness those sections need to stay. When people look at the CFS wiki page that information has to be there as it is basic information about the organization just like any other wiki page. It's basic factual information that should be found in a encyclopedic reference resource.
Furthermore the wikieditor `Fullsmash is Joey Coleman who is a long time anti-cfs agitator and writer, not an ``independent editor of wikipedia. He clearly has an agenda and should be banned from using wikipedia to spread misinformation and lies about the Federation. The proof is here:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/02/21/retraction-and-apology-to-the-cfs/
Furthermore, several sentences and entire paragraph were maintained even though their neutrality and sources cited were broken or dubious at best. Citing editorials from college newspapers is generally not a good source of information as fact-checking of these articles is generally not done.
I would also like to point out again that GreenJoe and others who undid my edits offered little or no comments and justifications for doing so. I am clearly communicating out in the open here and pleading my case for all to see. I believe this wiki page needs to be seriously edited and sections need to be added in order to make this a credible source of information. The Services section must stay, a campaign section must be added as well and other info must be tweaked/removed so as to be more neutral.
Nocandu1976 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- GreenJoe, what's wrong with you? you had 5 days to justify your position. 'STOP vandalizing this page!!!!' Some may think this is a bit harsh but he is obviously motivated by something other than being balanced and fair. Obviously I'm undoing your revert. Get a life.
- It's propaganda. Pure and simple. GreenJoe 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Not cool to start edit-warring straight after protection expires. You need to work together and find common ground, otherwise, you may temporarily loose your editing privileges. To help, you can request third opinions, or a request for comments, Wikipedia's first steps in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think an RFC is a great idea. I'll start one, though they rarely get any participation. GreenJoe 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is my last warning.Any further reverts, will result in editors being blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then protect the page again, because he's adding propaganda. GreenJoe 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm game for any kind of dialog. So far I feel like I've been talking to a brick wall. Nocandu1976 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)