Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Federation of Students/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Guelph Vote

As of yet there has been no official referendum results from the Guelph CSA's vote. Given the fact that wikipedia is not a news site and the highly contested nature of any information on these referenda I am inclined to side with caution and wait until official results are released. Official results will appear within days and it is inappropriate to post unconfirmed rumours in an encyclopedia. --Chris902 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the update, the onus is on Chris902 (or others) to show there is a dispute in the results quoted in the article cited. Citing such articles falls well in line within standard Wikipedia practices (eg. we don't only accept links to academic journals). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.20.185 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with inclusion of referenda results once they're official or once a reliable source is provided, however it is encyclopedic to include an unverified source in the form of rumours. (sources relying primarily on rumours violates policy as per WP:SOURCES. As per WP:BURDEN the onus is on you to find a verifiable and reliable sources. I see no compelling reason to include rumours in the article when we can wait a few days for reliable sources to confirm results.--Chris902 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to further clarify my stance: my specific objections to the source being are to The Cannon's use of anonymous sources and the Cannon's status as a website that relies 100% on user generated content and which does not have a clear editorial policy. The Cannon is not a campus newspaper with clear editorial rules or clear editorial oversight but is instead a student website analogous to a blog with multiple contributors. For example, they make quite clear that they do not verify any information on the website on its legal section: "Thecannon.ca has not verified the information and is not responsible for the accuracy of the information or for any liability of any kind relating to or arising out of the information or any use of the information."
If this same article appeared in the Ontarion (the student newspaper at Guelph), I think my opinion would be quite different (although I would still be wary of the lack of attribution). If someone can find a reliable source then I have no objection to the inclusion of any referenda results.--Chris902 (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact they had a referendum and had to go to court over it is notable, and is easy to find sources for. It should be included. The outcome can be added later once there's a reliable source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--Chris902 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Tag

The tag is from March 2008 (almost two years ago) and the page has undergone significant revisions since then and I believe a dispute resolution process took place in late March 2008. From what I can gather the original dispute centred around the services section. This section has since been completely rewritten at least once. Do people object to removing the NPOV tag? If so, what can we do to try to improve the article to the point where the neutrality is no longer disputed?Chris902 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed, but I think an uninvolved third party should double check to ensure it's NPOV. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Editors are supposed to be uninvolved... are you "involved"? Pmaclean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

2010

Okay, anonymous editor you need to work in good faith here. The reference you cite does not actually say most of the things you claim it does. The article was written BEFORE the Guelph vote yet you attributed the rumoured result to the cited article. You also made an uncited claim that the result of as of yet unheld referendums would end up in court. The latter is POV, the former is just fabrication of sources. I understand that you feel passionate about this issue but you cannot claim that a source says something that it doesn't. It's intellectually dishonest.--Chris902 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a vote took place, but this page should be documenting the facts, and there is nothing in these sources about whether or not these results are official. Pmaclean (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I visited the new links, and they do seem kosher. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The new citation is an accurate source on the referendum at Guelph. I added a mention of the fact that the Federation says that the results are not yet certified by the ROC, but that the Guelph CSA has released uncertified results. I also included info the other three referenda that happened and changed "April" to "spring" since some of the referendums happened in March. Rather than just reverting, lets try to work through and improve the accuracy of the article. I think my wording is better since it has some more details, but I feel like it might be too long winded.--Chris902 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment left on Chris902's talk page:

I reviewed the references in this article for the 2010 defederation. And while the first article from The Gatweay generally covers "the future", The Ontarian only covers the Guelph vote. Remember, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If it isn't cited, it needs to be removed. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is aimed at me? I don't think any of my edits have included crystal ball sections. In fact, I've removed a number of edits which have made references to events from the future. Are you sure this isn't meant for the anonymous editor?--Chris902 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's possible. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

From source #31, second paragraph "While bylaws approved last November stipulate that only two schools can leave Canada's largest student lobby group within a given timeframe, schools are attempting to bypass the bylaw in a myriad of ways."
Third paragraph "The only two student organizations approved by the CFS to hold membership referendums this semester were the Alberta College of Art and Design Student's Association and the McGill Post-Graduate Students' Society."Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake--I think I was reading a different article. Pmaclean (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries, it happens.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Irregularities from source #31: "schools are attempting to bypass the bylaw in a myriad of ways." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.153.29 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Read the first part of that sentence, "While bylaws approved last November stipulate that only two schools can leave Canada's largest student lobby group within a given timeframe". That is what is in the article and is reflected in my edits.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but the article outlines that several other more interesting irregularities caused the votes not to be recognized. My edit encapsulates that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.153.29 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, point them out, and be specific in your edits, it's not enough to allege broad irregularities, they need to be specified and included in the sources, which they are not.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, read the article. Moneys owed, unapproved voting dates, exceeding number of votes allowed, are all cited in the source #31. I suggest that they all be referred to as "irregularities". No need to reprint the news article in its entirety. 96.49.153.29 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, re-added the section I had before, added your section about conduct of the 2 students' unions. Hopefuly this compromise will work for all.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not ok. Not close to a compromise. Your edit is an incomplete and selective picture of what the article states. Stop reverting edits.96.49.153.29 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you say that my edit is incomplete, add to it, don't revert back to an edit that is clearly not acceptable as is, as it does not conform to Wikipedia:NPOV.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please be civil about this. Your edit does not accurately reflect with the source says about the behaviour of the student governments, so I'm trying to give it a balanced tone. You are not exercising good faith. I suspect this is because you are a connected Liberal, as your user page makes clear. Your partisan feelings are colouring your editing and I would ask you to move along if you cannot be civil and accurate in your edits.96.49.153.29 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I would remind you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You have discounted all my edits because you believe me to be a "connected Liberal", ignoring the substance and the sources cited (Sources which were provided by someone else). I have attempted several times to come to a compromise that would conform to Wikipedia:NPOV. However, you have repeatedly reverted all my edits and added a section that wasn't there before that further malign the conduct of the students' unions in question. Please use the talk page to propose some compromise rather than continuing to revert all my edits. Thank you.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I've improved your edits because yours are inaccurate/incomplete. I've attempted to improved the article in good faith, and you have reverted all of my edits to your bizarre selection of half-facts from the article. I have asked you, given that you have a vested interest in giving the page a negative tone, to refrain from editing this page, since you are clearly not taking a NPOV.96.49.153.29 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's try this again, here is my edit "approval from the national federation must be given before a vote can be held, and that only two schools can leave the CFS within a given time frame.". Now, Part 1, approval from the national federation must be given before a vote can be held, This is true, it is stated in paragraph 3 of reference #31. Part 2 and that only two schools can leave the CFS within a given time frame. this is also true, it is listed in paragraph 2 of reference #31. Please explain how added these 2 facts make the section inaccurate?Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
For starters, I don't believe that the article ever establishes as fact that those facets of the CFS bylaws were the reasons for invalidating those particular votes. Partially, it is a relevance question.96.49.153.29 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's the lead of the article "bylaws approved last November stipulate that only two schools can leave Canada's largest student lobby group within a given timeframe". If you want to add a line about the CFS claiming that unions owe them money, or that they had an extra day of voting, please feel free. But don't keep deleting my edits without any attempt at consensus.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't keep deleting my edits without any attempt at consensus. Just because it is in the lead does not mean that it is identified specifically as a problem with Calgary or McGill.96.49.153.29 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we attempt to actually build some sort of consensus here rather than knee jerk reversion of edits? Correct me if I am wrong but I gather than the main point of contention is whether or not to list what exactly the Federation has claimed were the irregularities in the referendum procedures. NoFunny is suggesting that since the article being cited leads with an incomplete summary of the bylaws it is implying that the CFS is claiming that the summarized portion of the bylaws are what were breached. Anonymous seems to be pointing out that the article never explicitly says that the 2 schools part of the bylaw were what was breached. I think that any careful reading of the article supports Anon on this. Including NoFunny's current edits in their current location creates the implication that the alleged violations concern the two schools rule. Perhaps the comprise is to include a brief summary of those bylaws earlier in the section or somewhere else in the article where it won't create a misleading implication?--Chris902 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, although let's ensure that this isn't in the form of a list.Pmaclean (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with that. What I was attempting to accomplish is to provide some explanation other that "Only the Alberta College of Art and Design vote followed the correct procedure for decertification. Several irregularities in the conduct of the students' unions at McGill and Calgary were citied by the CFS as reasons for invalidating the decertification votes.". Which is how the section read previously. If we chose to go with a little information as possible I would settle with "Only the Alberta College of Art and Design vote for decertification was approved by the CFS. Alleged irregularities in the conduct of the students' unions at McGill and Calgary were citied by the CFS as reasons for invalidating the decertification votes." However, I think specificity would be good here, and I would like to see a brief summary of the bylaws included.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why the "alleged"? About 75% of content on this page is alleged by one party or another, and reported on by an volunteer campus reporter, often without benefit of a quote.Pmaclean (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content in Lead

There have been many legal disputes between the federation and student associations over the legality and applicability of votes to leave the organization. Since 1995, only one student association has successfully terminated membership with the CFS without going to court, while student unions at Concordia University, Simon Fraser University, University of Guelph, and University of Victoria are fighting the disputes in court.

Apparently the above was removed by Pmaclean. I have put it back. As such Pmaclean edits are one sided (positive towards Canadian Federation of Students). --33rogers (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Pmaclean calls a proper edit Undoing page vandalism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Federation_of_Students&action=historysubmit&diff=447513188&oldid=447381790 to avoid scrutiny? Please see WP:AGF --33rogers (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The text to which you refer is totally inappropriate for the lead. There is no conceivable way that it is NPOV to promote recent membership disagreements in the text that is meant to describe the nature of the organization and it's mandate. As you are no doubt aware, there is a membership section below.Pmaclean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Please refer to WP:LEAD. It describes Wikipedia policy on what should be in the lead. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Please don't remove it again without getting consensus on the talk page. --33rogers (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please get a consensus on the talk pages before inserting inappropriate text in the lead of the article. Your text is bordering on vandalism.Pmaclean (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Monitor LSesom revisions

As of late, User:LSesom has been making numerous changes to this page (30+ changes since the end of February 2015). This wouldn't be so bad if this user removing large chunks of important, historical content (that is backed up by sources). This user makes very subjective claims in his revision explanation (i.e.: claiming that certain sections defame the CFS, stating that some information presents "a highly cynical view of CFS and is insulting and counterproductive", etc.). This user has also been modifying other Canadian student organization pages and has received warnings about removing large chunks of information from some of them.

It appears that this user has an agenda and his revisions should be closely monitored in the page's history so to allow for a factual history of the CFS to be portrayed whether it be positive or negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudcdnguy (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Canadian Federation of Students. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Federation_of_Students/Archive_3&oldid=815483056"