Talk:Canadian Federation of Students/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Membership numbers

Kwantlen students voted to remain in the CFS. In terms of the number itself, I ran some rough estimates and the CFS can likely continue to claim 500,000 members. FullSmash26 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, CFS went to court and got the referendum delayed, therefore disrupting the campaigning of the anti-CFS contingent at Kwantlen. I have also personally witnessed Kwantlen students being followed and physically confronted at CFS conventions. Once this makes it to a higher court, Kwantlen will be free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.18.148 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

CFS Services

I plan on expanding this section a little bit in accordance with RFC on March 2008. The general idea was that it needed to be re-written so as not to sound like an advertisement or brochure. Any input from other editors would be helpful.Nocandu1976 (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

hey wikipedians! I drafted up something a little more specific and it involves editing out a few lines in the opening paragraph and then separating off the services into short descriptive paragraphs. Let me know if there are any comments/suggestions/concerns.Nocandu1976 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Like this:

"==Services==

CFS-Services is a separate branch of the Federation, responsible for the numerous services CFS offers. The Canadian Federation of Students-Services (CFS-Services) was founded in the early 1980s as the successor organization to the Association of Students' Councils Canada (AOSC). One of the main operations of CFS-Services is Travel CUTS (Canadian University Travel Service), through which the CFS offers students and others discounted flights, and issues the International Student Identity Card.

StudentSaver Discount Card: The Studentsaver Card is a national discount program for students. The program contains 2,500 discounts across Canada ranging from 10% to 30% off purchased goods and services.

Dayplanner Service: CFS-Services has operated its handbook service since 2001-2002. The service was created by the Canadian Federation of Students-BC in the late 1990s. The intention of the service is to leverage the large volume of books produced to reduce the cost of students' union handbooks/agendas and improve the overall quality of the books.

Blogs?

Tawker, in reference to your citation tag: "We have seen blogs claiming that CFS members do not receive cards due to broken machines that haven't been fixed - particularly in BC - this needs an external cite that isn't an ISIC or CFS site"

What 'we' are you referring to? Could you also be so kind as to show me the blog(s)? I'm not so sure if blogs are considered as credible sources on wikipedia anyway. If you take a look at other articles concerning membership based organizations on wikipedia, linking back to the website of the organization is acceptable. That is quite a heavy burden of proof, don't you think? Such a standard surely would warrant half of this article to be deleted.Nocandu1976 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blogs don't meet WP:RS, and are considered original research, to the best of my knowledge. This article does require significant more sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

grad caucus

This section is incomplete. There are two other campaigns that should be added and talked about briefly. This should help up the quality of the article. Any thoughts or ideas?Nocandu1976 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a few more lines to this section. I don't see any reason to add more, I think it's fine as is, the grammar could be tweaked a bit but I will chip away at that as I go.Nocandu1976 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

History

No offense to anyone, but the history section lacking to say the least. I have been working on a modified version of this section that involves a more in-depth look at CFS' creation and have broken up the history into certain stages.

Here is what I propose, as you'll see, it leaves whatever was there before intact but just adds more detail. I plan to flesh it out even more. Looking forward to comments and suggestions:

---

Founding Conference

The founding conference was held 14-19 October, 1981, at Carleton University. Mike McNeil was elected as the organization's first Chairperson, along with Mike Walker (Treasurer), former NUS treasurer Kirk Falconer (International Affairs Commissioner), Kathie Cram (Women's Commissioner), Brian Robinson (Graduate Student Representative), Ben Freedman (Member at Large), and Leslie Neilson (Member at Large). The Federation's bylaws and constitution were finalized and over 50 motions were passed durring plenary. After hearing speaches by El Salvadorian and Chilean students, delegates passed motions condemning human rights violations and anti-student policies in thse countries.

A campaign strategy was also launched in order to oppose the Federal government's planned cut to EPF. The slogan for the campaign was "Access not axe us" and it called for an establishment of an all-grant system and a public inquiry into the future post secondary education. The campaign also called for alliance building with community groups and public sector workers in order to gain support fight against cut-backs to social programs. The campaign was nammed after a research report of the same name, by Bruce Tate. The report focused on effects of the Liberal cutback to education and highlited issues such as access and tuition fee levels.

The Conference ended with a student presence in the daily question period in the House of Commons, a meeting with secretary of state Gerald Regan, and a one-on-one debate between Chairperson Mike McNel and MP John Evans (parliamentary secretary to Finance Minister Allan MacEachern) in the Snake Lounge at Carelton University. Delegates attending the House of Commons Question Period were denied entry by security guards. Mike McNeil and delegates were not satisfied with the outcome of the meeting with Gerald Regan.

1990s

Some student governments left the CFS in the early 1990s expressing displeasure over the organization's political stances, particularly its opposition to the Gulf War, and its involvement in other issues, which some argued were outside the purview of student politics. As well, several of the student governments who left argued that the CFS's advocacy of "zero tuition" was unrealistic, and its emphasis on organizing political demonstrations rather than lobbying governments was detrimental.

In 1995, the Canadian Alliance of Students Associations was formed by several student governments dissatisfied with the CFS. They claimed the CFS was too busy promoting other campaigns, instead of fighting rising tuition, and felt that the CFS was an ineffective organization, not serving the needs of students. Since then, the CASA and CFS have not been on the best of terms, splitting student representation in Canada effectively in two.

The 1994-1995 school year saw unprecedented cuts to post secondary education in the order of billions of dollars. The Chretien Liberals, using a deficit-reduction rationale, cut billions of dollars in funding from Post Secondary Education. Liberal Finance Minister, Paul Martin, had dismantled the Established Program Funding and Canada Assistance Plan (two pieces of legislaiton designed to guarantee universal federal funding of health, education, and welfare programs) and lumped federal transfer payments for social programs and educaiton in to one Canada Social Transfer. In 1994, this proposal caused students and their leaders great alarm as tuition fees were expected to go up.

21st Century

Some of the students' unions have since rejoined the CFS, resulting in an increase of membership by 100,000 students. Returning members included the undergraduate student unions at Carleton University and the University of Windsor, and the graduate students at Queen's University. In 2002, the University of Toronto Students Administrative Council, Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students and Scarborough Campus Students Union joined the organization. At the November 2005 Annual General Meeting of the Federation, the results of the positive-result referendums at both University of Manitoba Students' Union and the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union were ratified. In 2005, students at the Edmundston Campus of Universite de Moncton, Thompson Rivers University, part-time students at Laurentian University, graduate students at the University of New Brunswick and more also became prospective members.

In the past ten years, the CFS has organized a series of actions to complement its lobbying of provincial and federal governments. In 1995, over 100,000 students came out to oppose the Liberal federal government's plan to introduce "Income Contingent Loan Repayment" Schemes. In Ontario, the CFS organized a series of demonstrations to protest the former Progressive Conservative government's deregulation of tuition fees and reduction of provincial funding. In British Columbia, it played an active role in convincing the former NDP government to introduce tuition fee freezes and reductions. They have been accused of being too close to the Glen Clark government in BC, and harassment of any union that tries to leave CFS.

--- Nocandu1976 (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The University of Saskatchewan Students Union vote was overturned by a court ruling. It is correct that the CFS ratified USSU but this wording leaves readers with the impression that USSU are full members of the CFS. They consider themselves to be prospective members and are planning another vote.

Suggested rewrite here:

In the past ten years, the CFS has organized a series of actions to complement its lobbying of provincial and federal governments. In 1995, over 100,000 students came out to oppose the Liberal federal government's plan to introduce "Income Contingent Loan Repayment" Schemes. In Ontario, the CFS organized a series of demonstrations to protest the Mike Harris government's deregulation of some tuition fees, primarily in professional programs, and reduction of provincial funding. In British Columbia, it played an active role in convincing the Glen Clark government to introduce tuition fee freezes and reductions.

The last para "In the past ten years, the CFS has organized a series of actions to complement its lobbying of provincial and federal governments. In 1995, over 100,000 students came out to oppose the Liberal federal government's plan to introduce "Income Contingent Loan Repayment" Schemes. In Ontario, the CFS organized a series of demonstrations to protest the former Progressive Conservative government's deregulation of tuition fees and reduction of provincial funding. In British Columbia, it played an active role in convincing the former NDP government to introduce tuition fee freezes and reductions. They have been accused of being too close to the Glen Clark government in BC, and harassment of any union that tries to leave CFS." should be in the Controversy section. FullSmash26 (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see what you wrote here 'till now. Sorry. I don't think the last paragraph belongs in the controversy section. This is what a student organization does, it's not like a scandal or anything. Is there something inherently controversial about opposing ICR or lobbying for tuition freezes? Or do you mean the last sentence in the paragraph should go to the controversy section? Nocandu1976 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Last para FullSmash26 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 student referendums

This intent of this sentence is suspect, and I don't see how it contributes to a section about referendums. I also have concerns about the reference to cfstruth which appears to be a non-neutral source, and I dare say it probably isn't considered credible by wiki standards. I propose deleting this sentence. "Further controversies have included the CFS's "war plan" to convince students to remain in the CFS using student funds to do so Nocandu1976 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been in Macleans - just need to find the cite there -- Tawker (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, the sentence does not belong in this paragraph. I also think a lot of the language in this paragraph is not NPOV, for instance, "and the CFS's use of the courts to delay the democratic referendum at Kwantlen University College[26]". I think it should be re-worded or deleted.Nocandu1976 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:ASF Nocandu1976 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "the CFS was accused of using legal processes to delay a referendum that was scheduled to occur concurrently at all the schools" - might be a little clearer. I think its important to note that the CFS has been accused of bullying legal tactics but the wording could use some work -- Tawker (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's a start Tawker, but let's take that to the next level. In order to attain NPOV you have to cite both sides of the story. How about this: "On March 14, 2008 a BC Supreme Court hearing was held on the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) lawsuit against the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA)"--(That's plain fact, no source necessary.) (Now one side of the story, ie CFS) "According to CFS' President Amanda Aziz, the lawsuit was launched when Kwantlen Students' Association hired Schiffner Consultants Inc. to run the referendum after a period of deadlock on the Referendum Oversight Committee." (Now, the other side, cfstruth) The Kwantlen Students Associaiton's Chairperson, Laura Anderson, claimed that the Federation was "afraid of facing the students" and was attempting to stall the referendum.

Nocandu1976 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see Mr. B is working with the article and working to respect the neutrality Wikipedia works towards.

The proposed wording is an improvement.

It works - minor wording, Aziz was quoted as saying there was no "lawsuit" at Kwantlen when questioned at the SFU debate. I believe a wording to the extent of to prevent all the schools from voting on the same day would be in order. Joey has a valid point about Schiffner - it's important to note that he was an impartial elections administrator and not biased towards the KSA. -- Tawker (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Schiffner Consultants (no need for the Inc. unless we start noting the corporate nature of the CFS and other "student" unions) had a previous relationship with the KSA having been court-appointed to oversee a previous election involving the KSA. I would also suggest changing the wording of "CFS lawsuit against KSA" to "the case CFS v. KSA" - that has a flows better. FullSmash26 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Schiffner Conultants Inc. is the name that the firm goes by, and every student newspaper, including the KUSA and cfs truth website refer to the firm as Schiffner Consultants Inc. ( I can dig up the sources, abou t6 or 7 of them if you want) Ofcourse, almost all student unions and associations are legally incorporated as you point out, for very specific reasons of liability and being able to own property and enter into legal contracts. Most people understand this about student unions and organizations so I am not sure why you would make it a point to say CFS is also incorporated. If you are using the word corporate in the sense that walmart or canadian tire is a corporation, you're mistaken, and I'm not so sure that a move to tag Inc. on at the end of every instance of CFS in this article will ever make it past most editor's sensibilities. I'm not sure why it matters to take Inc. off, or what difference it makes to most readers.

it is also fact that that CFS brought the lawsuit against KSA so I'm not sure why we would write CFS vs. KSA. The Canadian judicial system is very specific about who brings what to court, who is the appellant, who is the respondent, etc. It speaks to long established norms of legal procedure. Also It was an application to the supreme court and it was a hearing that did not make it to trial so it is not Canadian Case Law and does not count as legal precedent and therefore cannot be cited as "CFS vs. KSA".

Also I see no reason why the previous relationship between KSA and the consulting firm cannot be noted.

tawker: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean... Maybe you can elaborate a little about Aziz? Can you point me to the sources? also, "I believe a wording to the extent of to prevent all the schools from voting on the same day would be in order." Ok, but from what I read, that's not my understanding of what the hearing was over. Do you have the sources?.Nocandu1976 (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The hearing was widely seen by the MSM as an attempt to delay the referendum and prevent all the schools from voting on the same day - see this for a cite/example. As for Aziz stating no lawsuit, let me see if I can find a secondary source for it, I know we have a primary in the video of the SFU debate but a secondary would be better. -- Tawker (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance all of these tiny little points have with a few lines on referendums. Perception of an event is not grounds for an entry in wikipedia, verifiability is one of the grounds for inclusion of events on wikipedia and its articles, see WP:VERIFY. Also we have to remember that "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments" WP:NOR. The article you cited does not speak to what you say about the court hearing, that the hearing was widely seen by "MSM" (whatever that stands for) as a way of stopping all three referendums from happening at once. It is quite adequate that we have one line from cfs and ksa on the issue.Nocandu1976 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"The judge presiding also accused the CFS of attempting to delay the referendum." That's right in the article. Furthermore, you know what MSM stands for. FullSmash26 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The point that Tawker had raised was "I believe a wording to the extent of to prevent all the schools from voting on the same day would be in order." Tawker pointed to the Gateway as verification of that, but the article does not verify that some felt the hearing was designed to prevent all schools from voting on the same day. Is it not adequate to include that the KSA president felt the hearing was designed to delay the referendum? I think what has been written here is fine and we have to keep proportionality, relevance, and notability in mind when improving this article (notice I took out incorporated):

"On March 14, 2008 a BC Supreme Court hearing was held on the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) lawsuit against the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA). According to CFS' President Amanda Aziz, the lawsuit was launched when Kwantlen Students' Association hired Schiffner Consultants to run the referendum after a period of deadlock on the Referendum Oversight Committee. The Kwantlen Students Association's Chairperson, Laura Anderson, claimed that the Federation was "afraid of facing the students" and was attempting to stall the referendum."

Nocandu1976 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Schiffner Consultants overseas elections as an independent party. The courts have appointed them in the past when an independent party was needed. They have experience running elections for native governments - they are independent. FullSmash26 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything, you cannot verify that they are independent, let the facts speak for themselves, no need to add opinion. Nocandu1976 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The court appointments mean that in the judgement of the BC Supreme Court, they are independent. Can you prove the court wrong? I generally defer to the courts. FullSmash26 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

suggestion:

"The University of Victoria Graduate Students' Society voted 56% in favour of defederating [35] and the Simon Fraser Student Society voted 66% in favour of defederating [36]"

This sentence is not factual. WE should put something like "the graduate students at University of Victoria, and undergrads at Simon Fraser University voted 56% and 66% (respectively) in favour of defederating in campus wide referendums." It is the students that decide to leave, not the councils. Nocandu1976 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, done -- Tawker (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We should add a line on Kwantlen results too. Nocandu1976 (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Tawker (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Tawker: What you have written in the introduction is not constructive, you have provided no sources and I fail to see what purpose is served by keeping what you have added there. If you are involved in what happened in BC, as you have strongly implied in your comments, I would suggest taking a step or two back as you may not be in a position to attain neutrality.

Also the "claims to have a mandate" edit has already been worked out on this article and it was agreed that the "CFS having a mandate to fight for..." is the most neutral way of saying it. I am reverting that edit.

I will ask that when adding substantial edits you propose them here first so that everyone can have time to review, comment, contribute, and make suggestions, so that we can try to strike a balance here. I'll point you to two of wikipedia's policies, notability, and wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:N and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND respectively). I'm asking that you remove the paragraph that you have added.Nocandu1976 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nocandu1976, your comments imply your involved as well, especially back in March. Now, back to the opening, a better wording may be the "CFS states its mandate is to work for high quality, accessible post-secondary education at the federal level and provincial levels" FullSmash26 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tawker keeps referring to "we" have this and "we" have seen that. I have no involvement.

Case in point: "As for Aziz stating no lawsuit, let me see if I can find a secondary source for it, I know we have a primary in the video of the SFU debate but a secondary would be better. -- Tawker (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)".

Case in point: "We have seen blogs claiming that CFS members do not receive cards due to broken machines that haven't been fixed - particularly in BC - this needs an external cite that isn't an ISIC or CFS site" --Nocandu1976 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For all intensive purposes I find it extremely hard to believe that you're not involved - you're a single purpose account, all you have ever done is edit this one article - and we have sock reports on accounts that only edit this one article. My experience has proven when we get this sort of pattern 99% of the time it is someone working for the organization, generally an PR person who is trying to sanitize it and remove any negative information. I find it extremely hard to believe that you're not involved in some way shape or form. -- Tawker (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ad hominem Tawker, where's the wikilove? WP:NPA --Nocandu1976 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your revert to the first sentence. It is an nonconstructive edit. Nocandu1976 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Make a request for edit if you must, but just cause you disagree doesn't make it non-constructive. It's a neutral statement, and true - that's what the CFS states as its mandate. Try to avoid engaging in another edit war. FullSmash26 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As a passer-by I have to comment that this page is a mess. I have been zooming around union pages lately trying to find information about different unions/ member driven organizations and this is the only one that is hard to read. Also, it seems that not only is the page written like an ad in some places (which is strange because most unions don't sell anything), but there seem to be some people that are airing their dirty laundry. Most pages about organizations talk about history more than anything else (especially those that claim to have been around for the better part of a century). If WP is going to be considered a good place to get information then it should read like other encyclopedias. The focus on individuals over the last couple of years seems completely ridiculous -- this isn't Wikinews, it is Wikipedia -- higher standards are needed. I suggest some focus on grammar and readability and not getting caught-up on who said what and when. Anyone else interested in helping with this -- or is this just a page for petty squabbles? Unionizewalmart (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Major reformat

I've gone ahead and re-structured things into major sections w/ proper headings so it reads a lot better and is more organized. I've also added a tonne of citation needed tags which need to be addressed but on the whole, its a lot more coherent and less all over the map than before. -- Tawker (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tawker, you have to suggest the changes first. That's what I did and that's what you should do considering the nature of this article. You need to create consensus first before changes are made. Especially sweeping changes which you have made here.

1.) What happened to the services section? Originally it read:

"CFS-Services is a separate branch of the Federation. The Canadian Federation of Students-Services (CFS-Services) was founded in the early 1980s as the successor organization to the Association of Students' Councils Canada (AOSC). One of the main operations of CFS-Services is Travel CUTS (Canadian University Travel Service), through which the CFS offers students and others discounted flights, and issues the International Student Identity Card."

This is what was written after I edited it down after you had tagged it as reading like an advertisement. I did this over a couple of days, not in an an hour.

You changed it to:

"CFS-Services is a legally separate branch of the Federation. The Canadian Federation of Students-Services (CFS-Services) was founded in the early 1980s as the successor organization to the Association of Students' Councils Canada (AOSC)."

I would also add that these entries aren't big enough to section off. It looks bad.

2.)Also you changed this:

"In 2005, CFS-British Columbia, the Langara Students' Union and the Corus Entertainment owned radio station C-FOX led a "non-partisan" campaign registering young voters in BC called Rock the Vote BC, based on campaign drives used by the Republican and Democratic parties in the 2004 US Election to register young voters. Elections BC did not endorse the initiative because of concerns of partisanship.[23]"

to this:

"The CFS has also been involved with getting people out to vote in elections. For example in 2005, CFS-British Columbia (the provincial chapter of the CFS), the Langara Students' Union and the Corus Entertainment owned radio station C-FOX led a "non-partisan" campaign registering young voters in BC called Rock the Vote BC, based on campaign drives used by the Republican and Democratic parties in the 2004 US Election to register young voters. Elections BC did not endorse the initiative because of concerns of partisanship.[11]"

3.) you changed this:

Travel CUTS: Travel CUTS is a travel agency majority owned and operated by CFS Services. Travel CUTS was founded over 35 years ago, Canadian Universities Travel Service (Travel C.U.T.S.), operates in Canada and the United States of America. [14]

to this:

Travel CUTS is a travel agency majority owned and operated by CFS Services. Travel CUTS was founded over 35 years ago, Canadian Universities Travel Service (Travel C.U.T.S.), operates in Canada and the United States of America. Services at Travel CUTS are not restricted to CFS members although members do receive a discount.[24]

4.) you changed this:

Several student groups have been attempting to hold referendums to leave the CFS on the basis that it is not accountable to students, is not effective, and has mismanaged student funds [30]. Further controversies have included the CFS's "war plan" to convince students to remain in the CFS using student funds to do so. [31] On March 14, 2008 a BC Supreme Court hearing was held on the Canadian Federation of Students' (CFS) lawsuit against the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA). According to CFS' President Amanda Aziz, the lawsuit was launched when Kwantlen Students Association hired Schiffner Consultants to run the referendum after a period of deadlock on the Referendum Oversight Committee.[32] The Kwantlen Students Association's Chairperson, Laura Anderson, claimed that the Federation was "afraid of facing the students" and was attempting to stall the referendum.[33]. The Cape Breton Student Union Council voted 92% in favour of leaving the CFS [34], The University of Victoria Graduate Students' Society voted 56% in favour of defederating [35] and the Simon Fraser Student Society voted 66% in favour of defederating [36]

to this:

2008 saw an organized effort of several student unions attempting to part at the same time on the basis that it is not accountable to students, is not effective, and has mismanaged student funds [27]. A leaked document reportedly authored by "CFS-BC" dubbed a "war plan" named several CFS staff members as active members in the anti-defederation campaign. The KSA alleges that this is the "smoking gun" proving that the "Federation seeks to place CFS supporters in key staff positions in all of its member students’ unions" [28] On March 14, 2008 a BC Supreme Court hearing was held on the Canadian Federation of Students' (CFS) lawsuit against the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA). According to CFS' President Amanda Aziz, the lawsuit was launched when Kwantlen Students Association hired the independent elections administrator Schiffner Consultants [29] to run the referendum after a period of deadlock on the Referendum Oversight Committee.[30] The Kwantlen Students Association's Chairperson, Laura Anderson, claimed that the Federation was "afraid of facing the students" and was attempting to stall the referendum.[31].The memberships of The Cape Breton Student Union Council, The University of Victoria, Graduate Students' Society, Simon Fraser Student Society voted voted 92%, [32], 56%[33] and 66% and 66%[34] in favour of defederating in campus wide referendums and are no longer members of the CFS. In the delayed Kwantlen referendum Kwantlen students voted to remain members of the CFS. [35] (last sentence not NPOV)

4.) This does not belong in its own section. The CFS does not have political affiliations.

"Political Affiliations

The CFS has been accused of being too close to the Glen Clark government in BC.[10]"

5.)

This was never agreed to and its purpose seems strongly linked to hotly contested defederation campaigns in British Columbia:

"he CFS generally referred to legally consists of 3 separate organizations, the national CFS, a provincial chapter and CFS-Services which are often collectively referred to as CFS. The organizations generally brand themselves as CFS and do not make the distinction between the branches.[2] In addition, it is impossible to belong to one division and not another making the CFS de-facto one organization."

Your restructuring does not appear to be constructive. What you have done is taken several controversies and made them their own sections which is not necessary and is not NPOV:

a.)Douglas Student Union

b.)Departing Student Unions

c.)CFS Services

I'm asking that you revert your restructuring and instead propose changes on the talk page first. Nocandu1976 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

CFS is known to be linked to the NDP. That said, I support Tawker's changes. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The restructuring is not a major content change but rather a format change. Previously we had stuff all over the map, it wasn't clear what was what and it read like crap.

To your more specific points

1) Every service has it's own quickly navigable subsection. We're repeating information in the CUTS / ISIC section - it's there, no need to double say it.

2) If I'm not mistaken, that was exactly what rock the vote was designed to do and provides an example of an activity in the area.

3) Per the site, non CFS members can use travel CUTS and yes, CFS members do receive a discount. Perhaps the entire services section just needs to be forked into it's own article.

It's a rewording for clarity and tries to present more facts so it's more clear what the press releases were about. As for the last sentence, it was delayed under controversial grounds and that is the result. If I understand the sources right, one of the main goals was to have polling on the same date range so a delayed referendum had the potential to change the outcome of the results and so it is noted. It's a straight fact. As for the independent elections administrator, it's cited, and for that matter the Supreme Court of BC has used the words independent. It's POV to claim otherwise.

4) It has been accused of political affiliations from an external source. It's quite different than saying it has affiliations. I will change it to say allegations of political affiliations. This wasn't new material, it was just taken off a paragraph where it was inappropriately positioned.

5) It's reducing confusion regarding specific legally distinct organizations. Media reports have shown demands for retractions from CFS national lawyers when documents by a provincial chapter or services are labeled as coming from "CFS." While it may have received more press in BC and cites come from BC the fact that we have legally distinct corporations which disclaim the work of similarly branded corporations. People need to be aware of which corporation the article is talking about when we use terms like CFS-Ontario.

As for the section breakdown per years of departures and entrances a section header is there for structural purposes to make things easier to navigate. Things were moved around so everything was at least in an appropriate section rather than being all over the map. In terms of content breakdown, the section which you most strongly disagree with (the controversy section) is actually pretty small relative to a lot of articles. It's a balance and I believe we're a lot closer to it than we were before. For the reasons explained above, I do not see the need to revert the restructuring wholesale in any way shape or form.

I hope this has addressed your concerns. -- Tawker (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. Talking over me and ignoring my input is not gaining consensus. First of all, having a section with one sentence under it looks bloody awful. It looks terrible, and it doesn't read like a wiki article, it reads like instructions for making kraft dinner. You can't expect to ram changes through without discussion. Observe what I did over the past few weeks. I proposed changes in the discussion page first. Sure, I'm a stickler for details sometimes, but I want to get the facts right, and get the language as neutral as possible. However your actions demonstrate that you think a double standard applies, a carte blanche for you, and the policies of wikipedia for me. It's not fair Tawker. I've been working hard on this article and you need to recognize that and work with me not against me.

Aside from the restructuring looking awful. It's not neutral Tawker. Making a section called "Political Affiliations", and then putting a one sentence line under it saying CFS has been accused of being affiliated with the NDP is nothing near neutral. Structure determines content and therefore structure and how you decide to structure is not outside the principle of NPOV on wikipedia. Do you think you can unilaterally determine the structure of the entire article without consensus? I think you need to reevaluate your changes.

And lets be clear, it is not so that these changes can't be made, I think you have every right to make changes, but you, regardless of how long you've been on wikipedia, have to play by the rules. You need to propose your changes in the discussion page first. Nocandu1976 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction--Second Paragraph

The source coming from the peak is not appropriate as it does not support what you have written. The article makes legal distinction between CFS BC and CFS national. It doesn't support a broad assertion that as you say "The CFS generally referred to legally consists of 3 separate organizations, the national CFS, a provincial chapter and CFS-Services which are often collectively referred to as CFS"

Also: "The organizations generally brand themselves as CFS and do not make the distinction between the branches." Your source does not support that statement. Also "brand" is a corporate term and not NPOV language.

Also: "In addition, it is impossible to belong to one division and not another making the CFS de-facto one organization" Is not supported by the one source you provided.

See the reliable sources policy: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;" --- WP:RELY

Simon Fraser's The Peak, has a well established and long time editorial bias against CFS so I'm not sure if the article you use is even considered a reliable source. Again check WP:RELY for all the details

This also seems to be directly related to the defederation issues in BC, the article you use as evidence seems to speak more to what went on in BC last winter.

Nocandu1976 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Departing Student Unions 2006, 2007

This section change is a bad choice. If you read the content of the text under this heading, they don't match, as the student unions don't actually depart. If I'm not mistaken, this was orginally under Current Issues, or Controversey, I can't remember. Originially this was a better fit, unfortuantely the rapid and sweeping changes on August 12th-13th appear to have been made in great haste. Nocandu1976 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also: "In the delayed Kwantlen referendum Kwantlen students voted to remain members of the CFS. [34]" This has to be reworded. Not NPOV

Allegation of Political Affiliations

"Allegations of political affiliations

The CFS has been accused of being too close to the Glen Clark NDP government in BC.[10]"

This is pure propaganda. I'll say it again, making a section out of one baseless accusation that was in this article in the first place is not NPOV. By comparison, is the Liberal affiliation accusation noted so prominently on CASA's article? No. Must be removed. Nocandu1976 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Membership history

The membership changes in the 1990s and 2000s should be made more specific and referenced. The "membership issues" section should probably be renamed and give a more complete account of recent referenda (through a shortlist) rather than choosing a few. Controversies surrounding referenda should be put in the controversy section.

I am willing to start working on this in a manner that will not remove any referenced information from the page, but reorganize it in that manner. Philmarchand (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, I tried to condense some of the material in the article, but not sure if the edits stuck. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I worked a bit on the intro to clarify the legal status and "branding" of the different organizations (CFS, CFS-Services and provincial components) based on the primary CFS documents. Philmarchand (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with the article, from what I was told, was the CFS was trying to turn this into their own mouth piece. Frankly, I think that kind of information should be placed in a section about the structure of the organization. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The current text was vague and the references were not adequate, as debated earlier on this page, so I just looked in the official documents and clarified the question while adding some useful information. If you think this should be in a "structure" section, please create that section, but that doesn't justify deleting someone's else added information. Philmarchand (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The references were fine, but the main problem is the lack of references from other than CFS. That is what with all of the warning tags at the top of the article. I think the structure section can be written here and I can personally move it. What I would suggest is what the CFS says in their bylaws and end it with what journalists actually found out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok could you please just do the moving? I will do some more research later and put it up on this page first and wait for your input before putting in on the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmarchand (talk • contribs) 06:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Couldn't we make significant progress in removing the dispute tag on this article by making it more "encyclopedic" and take as an example other well-rated articles about lobbying/student organizations? It looks like half of the article was written by supporters of the organization and the other half by opponents. However an article should have NPOV throughout. I'm wondering why an article of low importance (according to the tag above) should be in dispute for months. Philmarchand (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a Discussion page like this yet! And for good reason, this whole wiki page is a sh&@ show. Why are some of the authors only interested in the last four or five years?! Clearly, most of the authors here were in university recently. Well, the world (and wikipedia) goes back farther, my wiki friends. This membership section can probably all go, because it makes no sense whatsoever to track changes in your particular period of involvement. Imagine if the Montreal Canadiens page had a "Player Trades" section that went into excruciating detail about the last five years of player trades. It's the same thing here. It is not NPOV nor is it encyclopedic. Tawker & Nocandu: discuss. Otherwise, I think this section needs to go.Pmaclean (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Travel CUTS

I suggested moving the Travel CUTS lawsuit paragraph from the "Controversy" section to the "Services - Travel CUTS" section. I also suggest making some changes, as outlined below. In particular, the source quoted does not talk about the 3 million $, but rather about ownership of 24% of Travel CUTS. I couldn't find any source precising the worth of that 24% Philmarchand (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the "Founded over 35 years ago" as I couldn't find any reference.

Travel CUTS

Travel CUTS (for Canadian Universities Travel Service) is a travel agency majority-owned and operated by CFS-Services (CFS-S), which operates in Canada and the United States. Services at Travel CUTS are not restricted to members of the CFS although these members receive a discount.

In 1996, the University Students' Council at the University of Western Ontario initiated a lawsuit against CFS-Services, to be later joined by three other student societies (Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia, Queen's Alma Mater Society and University of Alberta Students' Union). The plaintiffs "alleged the CFS-S illegally transferred assets from the AOSC, including Travel CUTS, to itself at a 1987 meeting".A settlement was reached in 2006 through which the plaintiffs acquired 24 per cent of Travel CUTS and two seats on its board of directors.

Quick edit to controversies

Hi again,

The item "Allegations of political allegations" was in fact a combination of two different issues, so I splitted them and found some more precise information in the sources quoted.

The first one mentions a CFS-BC chairperson (and now organiser) who worked in between for NDP premier Glen Clark (it also mentions that Glen Clark himself was a former CFS executive, but I couldn't corroborate this with another source, so I preferred to not add it for now. please do if you find some proof in Glen Clark's bio or something).

The second source (from Elections Canada) mentions that CFS filed the spending report late for the 2000 elections. I added the precision, since the original wording gave the impression that the report was never filled.

I hope these changes would be acceptable to both parties in the current dispute in an effort to resolve the Wiki dispute on this article.

Philmarchand (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good edit as far as I'm concerned. It's fair and neutral.

FullSmash26 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the larger scheme of things, there is nothing in this section that qualifies as a "controversy", but I'm open to hearing an alternative perspective. Monica Lewinsky was a "controversy" in the terms of Bill Clinton. Some negative coverage about some forgotten issue in some particular year does not qualify has historically notable. Let's take a step back and re-consider if this section meets wiki standards. I don't believe it does. Others? [I also commented above about the train wreck that is "membership". Please feel free to respond there too.]Pmaclean (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for other opinions on the services section

I think it is fine to write a separate subsection for the CFS Services for which we have interesting information to add (like Travel CUTS with the recent lawsuit), however there is no point in just repeating the CFS website here. I suggest for those services with no extra information, we just make a short list (in one paragraph) with one link to the CFS website. That will shorten it.

I just want to make sure people are ok with this, because this issue was hotly debated before. How long should I wait for feedback? Philmarchand (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll be alright if you put a draft of your rewrite here and give 24hrs from the posting with no comment before editing the front page. FullSmash26 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I've put the draft on my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philmarchand/Sandbox). I'll wait a day and a half before editing the front page. Philmarchand (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me - it says what they are and cuts the non encyclopedic descriptions which as you say, people can get their info easily elsewhere and far more current. From the previous edit history it looked like we may have had some corporate types wanting the article to read as a PR piece and that was much of the controversy. -- Tawker (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Major revisions done yesterday: Request for opinions on reverting or not

Hi everyone,

Some anyonymous editor made important changes to the page yesterday. Although some of them seem good and contribute to brevity and focusing on notable information, a lot of it is quite sloppy (i.e. unreferenced) and considering the debate on that page, I suppose some of you would have appreciated that person to post on the talk page before.

Also this IP address has apparently only contributed to the CFS and CASA articles.

I don't want to revert to the previous version in a rushed manner as this might be rude. I would suggest that the anonymous editor post on this talk page to justify their edits in the next day or so, after which we can decide whether to revert or not.

Philmarchand (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As the anonymous editor did not reply and since it would take more work to fix the problems in his edits that the problems in the current page, I reverted to the previous version. Philmarchand (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuition Fee Position

No doubt that the paragraph can be reworded and made better. The CFS has pushed for tuition cuts previously. In Manitoba, they take credit for a 10% rollback in fees when Gary Doer took office. FullSmash26 (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FullSmash26 here. The CFS likes to take credit for anything that isn't an increase, hence, their position is clear by implication.Pmaclean (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to Structure

Hello,

I've added to the Structure section and reworded the part already there to be more specific with regards to the articles cited. I put the edits in my Sandbox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philmarchand/Sandbox

and will edit the front page in two days if there are no problems.

Philmarchand (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Major change proposed to address article tags (NPOV and sources)

Hi everyone,

Please check the proposed new version in my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philmarchand/Sandbox

Here is a summary of the changes:

HISTORY - Replaced the unsourced 1990s paragraph with some referenced material on the same topic. I still need to find more information about the actual number of unions who left and how many of them joined CASA. I still need to find referenced information for the 1995-2007 period. - Renamed the sections so they are more descriptive of the information therein. - Moved a lot of information into history, see below.

MEMBERSHIP ISSUES - Removed the Lakehead part, because it was unsourced. - Removed the Ryerson part, because I'm quite sure it's not notable (maybe it would be on the RSU wikipedia article, but not the CFS one). There are probably a large number of students' unions internally debating CFS membership every year (in Ottawa it happened three years in a row), we can't list them all. - Relocated the rest in the History section, as it clearly fits in the "recent history" of the organization. I put a separate subsection about the 2008 disaffiliation referendum because there was so much content there.

CONTROVERSY

Wikipedia discourages the use of controversy sections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Criticism-section I agree that it is better to have a neutral point of view (presentation of different sides) throughtout. So I moved all the items there in other sections.

- Relocated the media coverage elements (editorials in the Peak, Global TV) in the "2008 disaffiliation referendum" section. For the Peak it's not ideal (since it's a 1998 article) but I think the article flows better if these criticisms are introduced as an example of the opposition to CFS in Simon Fraser.

- The question of CFS threatening legal action was adressed in my previous update to the Structure section.

- The report on election spending was put as part of "Rock the Vote", because it was related to CFS' campaign work during federal elections (even though not part of the BC Rock the Vote campaign, so maybe the section should be renamed).

---

I know the resulting article is far from perfect, however I think these edits (once I find the missing references in the History section) will address both tags of the article (NPOV and sources).

Philmarchand (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Philmarchand, this is a step in the right direction. The structure is superior, although there is still an inordinate amount of space dedicated to internal machinations. But this is good work. I support this change although if it goes live, I think there is still more balance needed.Pmaclean (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a final version with minor changes to 1992-1995 and 1995-2007 history, so that everything is referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philmarchand/Sandbox . I'll put it on the front page in one day if there's no opposition. I would also like to remove the "Sources" tag as I believe this was addressed, although the NPOV tag can remain until we debate it further. Is there an official process to remove a tag? Philmarchand (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Philmarchand, I would change the second sentence to make it more clear that the work is done at two levels, not that the education happens at two levels: "Founded in 1981, the stated goal of the CFS is to work at the federal level and provincial levels for high quality, accessible post-secondary education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmaclean (talk • contribs) 02:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I re-introduced the controversies section since sourced additions were removed without placing them elsewhere. While I agree we shouldn't need a section named as such, you cannot just remove the material without putting it somewhere else. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change. Please re-read the whole article. All the information you've added was an exact repeat of another part of the article, except for the following:

The Peak has held a consistent editorial line against the CFS. The editorial pages regularly contain articles denouncing the CFS on the bases listed above.[22][47] - I doubt there is sufficient evidence to make the claim that the Peak had a consistent editorial line, besides, what time period does this refer to ? The Peak existed even before the CFS...

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.[48] - The source was a dead link.

If you find a better source for the claims above, please add it to the corresponding section of the article rather than recreating a controversy section. Philmarchand (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Abortion controversy

I removed this addition:

In 2008, CFS Ontario issued a press release "applauding" the appointment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada for his successful efforts to legalize abortion in Canada and his subsequent efforts to make sure abortions were readily available to those who desired them.CFS Press Release</ref>

This has angered many students and non-students, as many students represented by the CFS are opposed to abortionAward splits students,and many others who are pro-choice are skeptical of Morgentaler's motives, seeing as he now runs a chain of abortion clinics across the country which gross over $10 million per year.

The main reason I moved it is because this isn't supposed to be a place for current news, and because it seems very editorial-like and not neutral. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this was a motion which expires at the next general meeting (October 2008) so it should no longer be listed as a "current" position. I'm going to delete unless somebody has a citation to the contrary, eg. was this adopted in permanent policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.71.54 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It was *maybe* noteworthy at the time, but it has expired.--Pmaclean (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits

Undid two recent anonymous edits because they were not NPOV and were not discussed on the talk page. If you disagree and think they added something to the article, feel free to comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmarchand (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Political - removed as the three items are not cited on the Canadian Federation of Students webpage - nor have they been referenced by them - and encyclopedia must refer to information not opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolerancebeach (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Political removed again - if any reference to the information removed from Wikipedia can be found please respond - there is no need to discuss this on the talk page as the data contained is not on the CFS webpage - in fact by placing this information without reference in Wikipedia the editors could be legally held responsible. Contact will be made with the editors to make sure that this page is referenced correctly and the information contained is the same as with other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolerancebeach (talk • contribs) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The sections are sourced. Sourcing is not restricted to the organization's main website. What's the exact problem here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the references do not go to authenticated websites i.e. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.249.65 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "authenticated" websites. Are you saying someone is spoofing the organization and claiming falsehoods about their positions? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that this is a seemingly random selection of issues. The CFS has positions on dozens, if not hundreds, of issues. Unless an editor feels like reproducing their entire policy manual here, I'm deleting this section.Pmaclean (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The issues in the article seem to be prominent ones. If these issues receive more attention than others then they deserve more coverage in the article. Giving minor items too much weight (or any at all in some cases) violates WP:UNDUE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. They may be prominent issues for you, but they are not prominent issues on the CFS's website. If anything, this section should be talking about tuition fees, financial aid, or research funding (see their news releases section of the website). It should be deleted or re-focussed.Pmaclean (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean prominent in terms of noteworthiness. It's doubtful many people care about mundane issues like tuition fees, whereas controversial topics like abortion are in the news daily. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument. Are you saying that the elimination of tuition fees is not a controversial topic? That's cool, because last time I looked my tuition fees were insanely high. I am glad that there is consensus on getting rid of them. Oh, and forgiving student debt. Consensus on that is awesome too. Access to abortion is pretty obviously a right in Canada CBC News Article and many organizations that have a position on it (in-line with the majority of Canadians and the law as it stands today). It really doesn't seem not all that interesting unless you are trying to push a political agenda of anti-choice. Perhaps it would be of interest on a wacky anti-choice website, but not on some random Wikipedia page about a student organization. Feel free to start your own website listing organizations that agree with the law (like organizations that are against theft of car radios), but you should leave this page out of your rather clear political agenda.Unionizewalmart (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial topics receive more media coverage and therefore deserve more coverage on Wikipedia. This is one of our most basic policies, WP:N. Something trivial like the org's stance on tuition fees clearly receives less coverage than that of "big" topics like abortions and Palenstine. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are demonstrating some bad faith here. With respect, it is ridiculous to say that a national student organization's main campaign--what it spends all of its money fighting--is "trivial". The tuition campaign gets 25x the coverage and exposure that any of the current issues that were previously listed here. If anything, it reeks a bit like the issues that a single socially-conservative user is concerned with is getting unwarranted attention on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmaclean (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting the trade policy. I am not sure that references to NAFTA is a "current" political position. It is also fairly obvious to me that anyone can find their position on Trade on their website as they have a fact-sheet about it on their site.Fact Sheet link Unionizewalmart (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the links that I provided by my edit. Those sources prove that the CFS position on supporting clubs who deny funding to abortion groups is a significant aspect of attention for the organization. The fact is, the political positons of the organization exist and are in their issues policy, it makes perfect sense for those to be published on here online. I agree that there should be an added emphasize on their lobbying on tuition, aboriginal issues and data rape, but the fact is these positons exist and should be documented. If you feel this section downplays tuition, then add it to the section!Spudst3r (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site nor is it a site to push political agendas. The links that you have posted as "reference" are not about the CFS they are about individual student unions have no reason to be on this site. Your objective is clear. If you want to post information like this and make accusations about the CFS there is the rest of the web to do it in. Please review the what makes a good entry in the help pages if you are confused about why this should be deleted. Unionizewalmart (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism to restore deletion that have comments and are supported by others on this discussion page without first discussion the section here. Deletions reverted. Unionizewalmart (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits are not vandalism. Before I made my edits, the article already had the current political positions documented, all that changed was their sourcing. I justified my edits here in this discussion page and then edited accordingly. You are wrong to say there is a consensus to not post political positions--that is in dispute. The sources and links I provided speak about specific campuses BUT ALSO mention specifically that the CFS is supporting them. THAT is why I linked to them--to provide evidence that it is a CFS position.

As far as I'm concerned, edits speaking about the policial positons of this organization are fair. While you are right to say that supporting abortion is a common political position, supporting the explicit denial of resources to pro life clubs IS a very prominant position of this organization that has been subject to great controversy. I agree that tuition and other campaigns need to be added, but you can do that by adding them in, not censoring this content.Spudst3r (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The political positions of the organization are fair game, but you cannot post just what you consider controversial positions. The CFS has a lot of political positions. All of these positions are on their website, so there is no need to list them here. If you are going to list them, then you should list them ALL. Further, if you are going to post brand-new sections then you need to discuss them here and reach consensus with the rest of the editors of this site.

It is vandalism to post information that leads to bias in the article. Just posting positions that you think are important is within the definition of bias. Again, you seem to only be interested in the abortion question, which is not a main campaign of the CFS (though it may be of some of the student unions/associations that belong to the organization). Posting links to blogs and badly written student press articles is hardly proof of anything. What it is is news, which is not what this site is about.

I am reverting your edits to the original position. There is a discussion on the abortion issue above which goes over the issue and the position of the CFS. Its positions is not un-similar to other unions and student organizations around the world. Let me summarize: It is not particularly interesting to note as most people would assume that a politically progressive organizations would have this position. It might be of note if they didn't have the position they do. The fact that their members and the unions that fall under the CFS umbrella are active on this is not interesting information about the CFS and should not be included. Unionizewalmart (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unionizewalmart is right, we are covering old ground here. The discussion by editors has already determined that random positions that are only remarkable to you are not notable, and should not be posted to this page. Furthermore, just because they are sourced does not make them notable, Spudst3r. Finally, not funding groups should not be the threshold for notable on this page. I'm sure the CFS doesn't fund lots of things. The CFS doesn't fund my uncle, should I put that on here? Of course not. Please stop reverting edits that you disagree with when the discussion in this section has clearly already been had, and you are in the minority.Pmaclean (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"The discussion has determined." I would hardly call a discussion consisting almost entirely of myself, DoctorFluffy, Unionizewalmart and yourself as a "consensus."

I'm a little confused about how stating policy from the CFS in a neutral manner is politically biased--it's pretty consistent with the existence of wikipedia. You may note that the pages of other lobby groups and politicians often go in depth on the context of their political positions and lobbying. Those who come to this page to find out more about the CFS should have a reasonable expectation to know the general political alignments of the group. The fact that only a few sections of the political positions are being articulated here is not enough to delete the entire section--if you feel the section is incomplete, then you should focus on improving it by better articulating all the positions of the CFS rather than to delete the entire section of the article.

If you agree with me that it is ok for wikipedia to articulate the positions of the CFS, then you should agree with me to keeping these sections. If we don't let imperfect but relevant sections of an article stay because they aren't perfect, then we wouldn't have much on wikipedia--would we? Adding a new section without discussion is perfectly fine under Wikipedia's WP:BEBOLD and encouraged. If you have a problem with the section existing, then you a right to delete it and we'll discuss the merits of that. But if you have a problem because the section because it isn't good enough, then well, the proper action would be to restore the content and work to make it better.

Finally, are you saying that all these linked articles are lying about the CFS supporting student unions who deny funding? It doesn’t matter whether you think these articles are poorly written or non-notable—all of those links provide evidence that the CFS (NOT its societies) has passed a resolution supporting student unions who deny resources to pro life clubs. The fact that there is even that much dialogue about the position proves that its not just me but many others who find this position to be a pretty notable aspect about this organization (in the same way defederation campaigns are notable, etc.)Spudst3r (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spudst3r, you have yet to demonstrate notability for the edits that you are aggressively pushing on this page. When I look at the CFS's website and most mainstream articles about the CFS, the vast majority of space is dedicated to student grants, SSHRC cuts, and tuition. That is noteworthy. Your random array of issues don't seem to capture what the CFS is really about. Please do not vandalize this page with obscure CFS policies that, while may be verifiable, are not notable or encyclopedic. I support deleting this section (as Unionizewalmart is doing) until a more suitable section can be written. In other words, take it to the sandbox and collaborate with Unionizewalmart to improve this page. Please don't warp it with artificial controversy (that's bad faith editing).Pmaclean (talk)

Pmaclean, under WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE a flawed article or section should be preserved, not deleted until it's “more suitable.” The inherent problem with moving this section to the sandbox is that it precludes others from taking part in the editing process. As a general policy, if there is factual information contributing to an article, then it should be kept in the article—even if the structure or balance needs work. You continually complain about the lack of other more prominent positions in this article, yet you have shown no effort to try to improve this section. I suspect you would rather have this whole section axed and are using the lack of mention to education policies as your justification for doing so. Under proper editing policy, and this is emphasized in the above two Wikipedia policies I linked to, the right course of action would be add more information to an article to provide balance, not to squash it because you don’t like how it looks.

To say we aren’t representing fairly what the CFS is about by articulating these policies is pretty unfair—these policies were all voted on and supported by its membership. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to look like an expanded version of a corporate website emphasizing what they want or like to hear; they are supposed to be an encyclopedia source documenting a wide range of information about a group. If a company commits massive environmental damage or fraud that isn’t widely reported, it’s still fair game for documenting on wikipedia—because the fact is notable (that doesn’t mean well publicized, notable means its worth mentioning) and should be documented. Likewise, cited and factual positions of the society should be documented here to give a more thorough article of what this organization stands for. If you find the information posted to be objectionable then that speaks more about the organization itself than a flaw in the article section WP:MORALIZE

Now to be fair, you may have an argument under Wikipedia’s WP:UNDUEWEIGHT policy, but this applies more to the covering of opinions about a topic, person or organization (giving undue emphasis to the views of flat earthers, for example). My vision for this section is to eventually produce something similar to a Political Positions page like Political positions of Ron Paul or Political positions of Barack Obama. I certainly think a political positions page as thorough as the two above is certainly within the guidelines of Wikipedia for the covering the CFS—but it will just take some time and a lot of work to get there. If you think the positions are emphasized in a manner that is biased politically or non notable (an assertion I challenge), then again, the right course of action is to update and fix the section, not delete. Eventually a thorough article on the CFS would mention all of the current policies among many others, and we’ll have a much more complete article.

I am reverting your edit deletions because this section has merit to exist and is currently in line with Wikipedia policy (that's not to say the section is perfect--it needs work). The onus is on you and others here to fix the article, not through deletion but by further updating this section through the normal editing process. I plan to do this myself but I look forward to your assistance in doing so. Wikipedia's policy has very clearly stated that deletion is not the appropriate response to your problem with the section.Spudst3r (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Spudst3r, you are showing bad faith my making unilateral additions and reversions without talking them through here. It is not enough to state an opinion and add unnoteworthy text. You have been requested by others numerous times to take a step back and work things out on this discussion page, but you refuse. I am pleased that you have discovered the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT policy, because that is what other editors and I have been saying all along. Speaking of policy, this might also help you understand why editors here are reverting your changes: WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not, WP:Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.

If you have a vision, take the time to consult with editors about additions/deletions. Although, as I've stated, I disagree with your vision that "all of the current policies" should be in this encyclopedia. If I'm not mistaken, there are dozens (hundreds?) of CFS polices.

This is not a battle, this is a collaborative effort. Please stop vandalizing this entry with random bits of information that is not historically notable.Pmaclean (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the information and I am doubtful that political positions would be considered "indiscriminate information." While maybe not every policy should be included, the point is that we should be providing an overall stance about this organization which can be expanded and forked (if needed) into a separate article articulating its position. That would mean inclusion of important and topical issues like the CFS's abortion stance (not the pro choice aspect but the supporting student unions who deny funds aspect), aboriginal funding, tuition/education policies, foreign policies and any else that is overly topical and relevant. But with that said, I think an overall description of the political alignments should happen. The overall rule in creating this article should be whether or not this information would be included in a well made feature article--not whether it fits in the uncompleted article that we have now.

Our best approach now is to edit this article collaboratively so that we can shape a good section on political positions. We both agree that it needs work so I look forward to having a constructive effort here. But I warn--if this section is deleted, then I will revert it because that is not the proper course of action for dealing with this section under Wiki policy. Merging the campaigns aspect of the organization with the political positions aspect while keeping the clarity of both sections could be one way of making this article better.

I don't think every change to this article needs to be immediately ran through the talk section unless its deleting or substantially changing the content of the article. It's pretty good to subscribe to the WP:BEBOLD whenever possible. This article is still in its infancy stage and we should still be encouraging creation as much as possible.Spudst3r (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging creation is not writing a single point of view on the page and getting into a reversion war with people who have been trying to actually edit this page for the better. Vandalism is not creative creation. Unionizewalmart (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unionizewalmart, you have not responded to a single one of my points. You have provided no linking to any Wiki policy to back up your opinion and have done absolutely nothing to improve the content of this section. If you want to continue this “revert war”, then it might be time that we take this to the next step and go through dispute resolution. I will be reverting this back citing my interpretation of the policies above that I think in good faith this section of the article must remain for the time being. If I see another revert without any attempt to at least preserve or improve this section, then I will bring this article to dispute resolution.Spudst3r (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to contribute right now, but just a suggestion for Spudst3r: you shouldn't cite an outdated third-party source (the personal SFU student website) when you can find the up-to-date policies here: http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/downloads/Post-Secondary_Education_Policy.pdf . For example, you'll see there that the "Social Class" policy was repealed and replaced with "Socio-economic barriers" with a very different content. Philmarchand (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So this needs to be dealt with. I am deleting the "social class" entry and I think editors should cross check spudster's source with the actual policy of the organization. I'm inclined to just delete all of these political position entries that rely on the out of date source, but I think it should be discussed first.Chris902 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

An anonymous user added a section on the passing of a resolution supporting the Right to Education campaign, but the link makes no mention of the national organization passing such a resolution, instead the linked article talks about CFS-Ontario passing a resolution of support. Unless someone can provide citation for the Canadian Federation of Students (rather than one of the autonomous provincial components) passing a similar resolution I am going to delete this section. Chris902 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Pmaclean (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If only portions of the organization support specific policies then the article should be written to reflect that, but the content shouldn't be removed entirely. Something like "certain provincial chapters support policy X". The national organization inherently does at least tacitly support the resolutions of its smaller components by the nature of what it means to be an organization. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the other orgs are separately-incorporated organizations (not chapters, subgroups, or branches). This is an important distinction, especially when it comes to separately arrived at policy positions. It should be deleted, as per Chris902's suggestion. Is there a reason that you think this article should be highlighted above all other policies? Pmaclean (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, controversial topics are more notable and in turn more deserving of coverage on Wikipedia. Can you elaborate on what you mean about the distinction of the structure of the organization? How can these organizations be related enough to share a name and have common oversight without being related enough to have their policies mentioned in the same article? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, your argument is based on the idea that something is controversial and thus should be posted (like the abortion issue), but here your argument for posting this on this organization make even less sense because it wasn't even this organization that passed a resolution/motion/position, it was some other organization that has a name similar to this organization. I am deleting this section and unless you can link to something that shows that the org that this page is about has this position I think that this part of the discussion should end.Unionizewalmart (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So there is another organization spoofing press releases of the "real" organization? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I really haven't any idea what you mean here. There are two organizations, as far as I can see, the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Federation of Students - Ontario. The two orgs seem to have different websites, policy, and campaigns. CFS and CFS-Ontario. The CFS-O seems to be a little more activist in language and positions, but I am not interested in comparing all their positions. Clearly they are different enough. I think that if you want to write about the campaigns of the CFS (which is what this page is for) you should outline that they are a progressive organization and link to their policies which seem to be outlined on their website. I see no reason to outline them again here or highlight a few that some people find "controversial". Seriously, it seems that your tone is not one of a passive Unionizewalmart (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that if it is only notable because it's controversial then we should be more careful about mis-attributing it to the wrong organization. The provincial/federal bodies seem to be creating difficulties in this discussion - the provincial components are autonomous in the same way that provinces are autonomous from the federal government. If the Ontario legislature passed a motion condemning pears it would not mean that the federal government also opposed pears. I am not totally opposed to including this information, but it needs to be organized differently.

My suggestion is that someone create new pages for particular components, although I only see Ontario and BC as being large enough to warrant their own pages. Chris902 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits were made without commenting on the reason. Revised. Unionizewalmart (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 petitions

Undid removal by pmaclean of section on 2009 petitions. The claim that a student paper is not a suitable place to discuss a student political sources is unreasonable.(the claim pmaclean made in his/her deletion)

I also agree that The McGill Daily is a reliable source. --Padraic 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Student newspapers are written by volunteers with no professional code of conduct, and should not be considered a reliable news source (Mad Magazine has been around a long time too).96.49.153.29 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These are straightforward facts. A student newspaper is fine for that. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't know they are "straighforward facts" because the only source is in question. Also, Wikipedia is not a breaking news source, it is an encyclopedia--this item shouldn't be here unless it is historically noteworthy relative to the decades the CFS has been around.96.49.153.29 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should either be held off or flagged as being a rumour at this point. At most the article in question can be taken as proof that the Post-Graduate Students Society at McGill is circulating a petition (and probably that Kwantlen and Calgary grads are too). There was no evidence that any other student union was actively involved in a petition drive presented in that article (other than Calgary grads and Kwantlen). It seems unreasonable to assume that a local student newspaper based on a Montreal campus can accurately report on the activities of 13 other campuses unless they cite some sort of evidence. I also question the decision to include this on the basis that the intent to circulate petitions to hold a referendum does not seem notable enough for inclusion in the article. Literally anyone could begin circulating a petition on any campus, but until the petition is actually completed and sent to the CFS it seems imprudent include it in the article. We don't include any reference to individual students or executive members debating the merits of membership in the Federation or other organizations in the article because they're not consequential actions. If the rumoured petition drive leads to a referendum then I think inclusion is justified but given the current situation it seems that the events are neither notable nor verified.Chris902 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that each year's referenda are noteworthy Chris902, because this page should be described as "What is the CFS?", not "What is a volunteer journalist saying about the CFS this week?"Pmaclean (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the referenda are non-encyclopedic about this point; that's a separate issue from the reliability of the sources. --Padraic 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. That was a bit of a non-sequitur.Pmaclean (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The section in question is cited by a perfectly acceptable source (a college paper most likely can determine what other colleges in the region are doing), yet a few of you continually remove it and, for that matter, anything even remotely critical in the article. In addition to WP:OWN issues, there are pretty obvious WP:COI issues as well. Please disclose any relationships any of you have with this organization. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For an organization whose relevance clearly waxes and wanes based on it's total membership and, to some degree, the contentedness of it's members with the fact that they're members, I would suggest that it absolutely relevant to have (even "breaking news", to a limited degree) content that is about attempts, petitions and expressions of opinion. Of course, this page, due to the nature of its content and the nature of Wikipedia, will always be a place where those who wish to make the Federation look good and those who want to make it look bad will duel. For example, a potential defederation referendum will be reported with no mention of the fact that it was started (and finished) by three drunk frat guys in the middle of summer (and of course, such a report will promptly be deleted). On the other side of the coin, the most common issue seems to be removal of "reporting" of opinions expressed by the Federation that may be seem slightly odd to a casual visitor, claiming them to be non-notable. As a (somewhat) outside observer, these deletions do seem to be However, I think (hope) that there could be a more reasonable philosophy of inclusion. Here would be my proposal regarding federation / defederation processes:

There are several elements that should always be included. If these elements can't be found, information should realistically expect to be removed.

What is the reference? (this should be listed explicitly in the text, such as "In early 2009, the UBC student newspaper, the Ubyssey, reported that...") This could, of course, be "it was widely reported that...", but then there better be at least 3 references...

What official body, if any, is involved in the process? Has someone's executive committee applied for provisional membership? Have a group of random students started a petition? Has the student body in question expressed any support? Some description of *who* is actually doing this must be included.

What standard must be met, and what is the way forward? ("In early 2009, the Varsity, the University of Toronto's largest student newspaper, reported that the U of T campus in Barrie's student society had begun the process of seeking membership in the CFS. The board has applied for provisional membership, meaning that a referendum on federation will be held within a year." Alternately: "In September 2009, the National Post reported that students at the University of James Bay have been circulating a petition requesting a defederation referendum. Several of the campus's student groups have expressed support, but the UJBSU has debated the issue and chosen not to express an opinion.")

I would hope that if these sorts of standards could be met, there wouldn't be these stupid in-the-eye-of-the-beholder fights over notability.

Anyone else agree? AshleyMorton (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of the referendums being held or with citing student newspapers. My problem with this specific case is that students expressing interesting in collecting petition signatures in the near future is not the same as referenda actually taking place. As of now the action does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If the McGill Daily (or anyone else) reports that the required number of signatures are collected and a referendum is called then I think it may be appropriate to include that information in the article.

Chris902 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris902, I have to disagree - I would suggest that *if* some significant, organised, prevalent, signature-gathering was taking place, this would be worthy of inclusion. What I'm trying to suggest is that background must be given (most relavent of which would probably be whether such pro-defederation "movements" were supported by the elected student representatives). It would be nice if we could set up some standards that would cover most questions regarding inclusion here, because we all know that this page is such a political football for many of the people who have the most intense feelings regarding this organization (sometimes I wonder whether anyone actually uses this as a source of information, or rather just some kind of scoreboard to demonstrate how many "points" their side has managed to accumulate lately).AshleyMorton (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is a larger issue in this article that the "History" part might be overly representing recent content (2008 and 2009 events). This is probably not intentional but could be a mix of factors: time the article was created, availability of online student newspapers, etc.

That said, on the smaller, latest point of contention, a compromise wording (that keeps the content there, but doesn't give it undue importance) could look like this: "In September 2009, the McGill Daily reported that students within thirteen of CFS' eighty-[???] member locals had organized petition drives, demanding a referendum to reconsider CFS membership." Then there could be a footnote to list the student unions involved, and saying which % of the CFS membership (and budget) they represent.

I would suggest that it needs more than that. For example, if a "petition drive" is really just someone who's printed out a signature grid on a piece of paper, and managed to get their roommates to sign it, then it clearly shouldn't be included. On the other hand, if it is being driven forward by a specific organization (let's say a particular cultural organization, or the student union itself!), or has reached some sort of recognizable threshold (50% of required signatures, maybe?), or some other "perspective" can be given (and, of course, such things can be verified by references) then it probably passes muster (in my mind) for inclusion. As a parallel, the Nobel Peace Prize allows any parliamentarian in any national elected parliament in the world to officially nominate candidates for the award. Thus, supporters in Congress nominated George W. Bush for the Peace Prize several times. However, including in an article the idea that Bush was a repeat nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize without clarifying that hundreds of people, including people explicitly convicted of crimes against humanity, are nominated every year, fails to provide appropriate perspective, because it fails to include process and magnitude information that clarify what *really* happened. I would suggest that if we can't find such "perspective" info here, then we should not include the info at all.AshleyMorton (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But now that several petitions have reached the threshold and have been submitted (as per sources cited) there is no justification to blanket-delete this section. Maybe it should be kept brief to avoid undue weight, but complete deletion is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.27.169 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source (The Varsity (newspaper)) on this issue. --Padraic 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And another. --Padraic 13:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over notability of recent events regarding student association

This page (more precisely the \"Membership\" section) has been the site of recent deletions by anonymous posters. I reverted those deletions. Not that I think the current version is the best possible, but I believe there is a space for mentioning recent events without giving them undue weight. I would request suggestions from uninvolved parties of alternative wording for this section. Philmarchand (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are more details on the recent anonymous edits:

1) 2009 section: I agree day-to-day updates are not up to wiki standards. I would suggest a more summarized version to avoid undue weight being put on that single year. However, the proposed edit (simply citing the McGill Daily article and mentioning alleged efforts to initiate referenda) evades the fact that a few campuses have actually submitted petitions. I would argue only those campuses are notable. Maybe a single sentence listing the campus that have submitted petitions and have referenda pending (with links to all necessary references) would be sufficient. Comments?

2) 2008 defederation referenda: I'm not convinced that "decertify" is preferrable to "disaffiliate". Neither term is used in the CFS bylaws, rather "referendum on continued membership" is used. Also, deletion of referenced information (especially the results of the vote) wasn't justified. I note that this section was subject already to a large debate on this talk page, to get to the current version, and encourage people to look back to this discussion.

3) The edits in "structure" (regarding the name sharing between CFS, the provincial components and CFS-S) were also not justified, and again the previous wording was the result of a long previous discussion here.

4) 1992-1995 section: Minor edit, but again I would like to see justification that "certification" is a better term than "affiliation". As far as I know in most Canadian provinces student associations don't go through a certification process similar to unions. The CFS bylaws use the words "vote to federate" and "vote on continued membership", so these could be used here, however affiliation/disaffiliation might be more broadly understood by the average wikipedia audience. Please discuss.

5) Other edit to 2008: The current wording was achieved by trying to represent both the point of view of the CFS chairperson and the KSA chairperson. Removing one of the two does not appear constructive. Also it wasn't justify.

6) Removal of external link: also not justified. Here it would be beneficient to know what is the Wikipedia standards for acceptable content of external links.

Philmarchand (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the information being added is following with Wikipedia's WP:Bold polcy, but could definitely be cleaned up and organized. Creating a table of each school with some information regarding their defederation attempts I think would be appropriate--it would also make this page an excellent resource for information on the topic--one which is currently very notable in the world of student politics.

A quick read of campus newspapers ACROSS Canada and the Canadian University Press will confirm just how big this issue is--this is no "afterthought" or one that is non-notable. In fact, I would argue other sections in this article have been given undue weight in comparison to the rest of the article (Graduate student issues, for example). I see nothing wrong with a detailed section regarding the efforts to petition to leave, and may even justify the creation of a new article if people if the content becomes too much.

There's been MANY bad faith edits to this page lately, and it must be made clear that section blanking is NOT an acceptable way to deal with referenced content.Spudst3r (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the appropriate way to deal with this is the inclusion of a list of schools where it has been reported that a completed petition has been sent to the federation, with links to articles confirming each claim in the footnotes. For example "In October 2009 students at UofX, Y College and Z University claim to have collected enough signatures to hold referenda on membership in the federation." Is the number so large that a table really makes sense? I don't know if there is enough information to justify having a full table with columns, etc. I think that we need to be careful about overwhelming the article with the minutiae of present events most of which will in the long run likely be of limited significance. Wikipedia is not a place to provide detailed descriptions of events "as they unfold" and it's inappropriate to lend more weight to current events than it is to events from the mid-90s. At the same time, these blanket deletions and reversion wars between anonymous contributors need to stop.Chris902 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris902's suggestion. Also within the next week I will revert the anonymous vandalism in the 2008 section (sourced information was removed, then the person put a 'reference needed' tag? that's dubious) unless the person takes the time to justify it here. Philmarchand (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits by 96.49.71.54 and their edit history appear to show a partisan POV. I note their edit to the USSU paragraph in which they add the USSU claims to have no legal relationship with the CFS. The court ruling was clear and the USSU lawyer's opinion is that the USSU is not a member of the CFS. Paragraph needs to be reworded. If there is another legal case, then the use of hedging language such as "claim" would be appropriate. I expect there will be a lot more edit wars as the online information wars heat up. I made one minor edit today to the article, but I avoid major edits due to my employment as a journalist covering higher education. FullSmash26 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So...is that like the pot calling the kettle black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.73.136 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, all of this referendum/CFS-Q nonsense is giving unequal weight to grievance mongering (as stated earlier by another editor). Do you know why Barack Obama's page doesn't have that crap about his so-called birth certificate "controversy"? Because wikipedia should not be a soapbox for people to run a smear campaign. That is precisely what is happening on this page, so I'm going to request comment from an editor.

The CFS-Q material is not receiving undue weight. Nor is it similar to the birth certificate "controversy". Here are the FACTS: The CFS has sent letters to both the CFS-Q and the CSU mandating that any money collected by students for the CFS-Q must be sent to the CFS-National instead. Furthermore, the CFS-National has now mandated that the CFS-Q must stop all operations.

For an organization and federation, that is HUGE news. Furthermore, information about the specific petition attempts, when covered in news and sourced, is notable information. We cover election topics with polling data and specifics, and that is part of making an article complete. If there is worry that there is undue weight being given to the defederation petitions, then a new article can be created with a smaller sub-information posted here--but so far, this section of the article is far from getting too big. Remember, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a manual for information--detail is encouraged if relevant and encyclopedic. This topic is definitely notable enough to receive detailed attention and encyclopedic coverage.Spudst3r (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Spudst3r, you're not acting in good faith here. You're accusing other people of failure to discuss edits on the talk page and of partisanship while reverting anything that edits your own edits. Chris902 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel we're still waiting for a completely external input on this. But in the meantime, I would propose the following points of consensus (not exact wording yet).

- First of all, the 2008 section was already subject of lengthy debate here, and I would propose that nobody deletes from it before posting on the talk page and requesting comments. This particular comment thread is about the 2009 events.

- I think it's clear from the discussion here that simply circulation of a petition on a campus doesn't mean notability standards. I would propose following Chris902 that we only indicate those that have submitted petitions. How many signatures each petition has seems pointless detail, all that matters is that they presumably had enough to submit.

- There is no source for "The current effort could lose the CFS nearly 200,000 students and 2 million dollars of their current 6 million dollar annual revenue." and therefore I wouldn't include these numbers unless they were backed by a reference.

- I don't think the counter-petitions are notable for now, since we don't even know if the counter-petitions would have any impact at this point.

- The fact that the CFS-Quebec provincial component was dissolved seems significant enough.

Any more comments? Philmarchand (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I made edits to attempt to make the 2009 section readable and reasonable. I left all the references there so those interested in reading more have access to that information. My major concern right now is that for people without a horse in the referenda race who come to the page looking for an encyopedia article need to be able to read a reasonable accurate and concise article about the history of the CFS - while that article should include the positives and the negatives it should not be so exhaustive as to make it unwieldy and unreadable.Chris902 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris902's edits except for the word "claims" which seems to be extraneous, and gives the impression that the information is somehow less reliable than the rest of the Wikipedia article. From reading the referenced articles, the Ontario and Quebec petitions were delivered by process server, while the UVic petition was validated by the institution's registrar. I would consider this to be factual enough for our purposes here. Philmarchand (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.27.169 (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unintentional and I will edit it. Another issue: I feel like there needs to be some consistency in the subheading names. Right now we have "2009 Defederation Efforts," "2008 Defederation Referenda" and "1992-1995 Referenda." Other than the years listed they should probably have the same title... for some reason I just can't come up with a non-awkward sounding wording for that subheading. 20XX Membership Issues? 20XX Membership Referenda?Chris902 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I edited it so that there is an "Evolution of membership" section subdivided by years. I felt that was the most neutral way to present it. Also, there was a comment earlier that resolutions that are not standing policies (such as the one indicated under "Reproductive rights") expire at the next general meeting. Therefore I will move it in a new "Past political positions" under history (I'm open to renaming this section). The two other issues under Current political positions (student loan bankruptcy and support for same-sex marriage) appear in policies of the Federation, so I believe they could be still called current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmarchand (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Past political positions" just sounds and looks awkward and strange. I understand the sentiment but I am wondering if there is a better way to phrase it?Chris902 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that means those positions no longer exist, so they shouldn't be on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.153.29 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CFS-Q stuff might be better dealt with under structure instead of Membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.153.29 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Modified CFS-Q stuff to better reflect the meaning in the cited article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.198.172 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2008

I did two things here which need explanation and possibly discussion: 1) I removed the exact percentages of the referenda. It's the kind of minutiae which is unnecessary, but I left the link there so people interested in that level of detail can find the information on their own. The 1998 section is still too long considering the relative insignificance of it. Perhaps more detail on the mid-90s would remedy this inbalance rather than taking an axe to this section (which is not to say that it couldn't be made more concise) 2) I removed an article from the Peak from 1998. I can't see the justification for including an article from a full decade earlier in a discussion of events that occurred in 2008. I think that the global stuff and the quotes from Anderson are enough to explain the grievances which led to the referendum at the KSA. Chris902 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it gives unequal weight to unsubstantiated (yes, things can still be unsubstantiated even when they are covered in the mainstream media) allegations and unequal weight to one person's POV, especially when this one person's POV was apparently out of step with KSA members.--Pmaclean (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To 96.(...) ("Decertification man")

Stop using the word "decertification". It doesn't appear in the text of the referenda or the CFS By-Laws. Does a student union get "certified" in the CFS? NO. Seriously, just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.148.109 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris902 (talk • contribs)