Talk:Canadian Alliance of Student Associations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Attacks 3 Liberals 4 CASA vs CFS Tactics 5 U of Manitoba 6 U Sask 7 Members 8 Neutrality 9 NPOV 10 Winds are Changing Again + McGill 11 The Liberal Issue

[edit] NPOV

So where is the proof behind the mention of those schools? You have to backup your claims. Spinboy 03:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PROOF You can see http://www.casa.ca/member.asp to see that U of A is no longer a member of CASA. Both them and Lethbridge left the organization in 2002-2003. Lethbridge has since rejoined. University of Manitoba and University of Saskatchewan's students unions became prospective members of CFS in 2004, http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/english/about/member_locals.php. You can see it also at U of S's newspaper http://www.thesheaf.com/newspub/search.cgi?category=all&keyword=canadian+federation+of+students

Hope that suffices.

MORE PROOF

Another article from The Manitoban [1].  

Also, both unions are still members of CASA. They have not ended that relationship yet, but I did not claim so in my edits.

That's great, and I appreciate that. However, you don't have to attack CASA in it's own article about how effective they may or may not be. That's not neutral. That one paragraph should still be removed. Spinboy 04:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks

OK, I agree, and will remove it but I don't see what is different between this and the comment made on the CFS site saying that CASA members left after much dissatisfaction with CFS. I personally agree that organizations should not be attacked on their own pages but people seem to have different opinions on Wiki about this. Serious 7 Jan 2005

The tone of the article is very POV. 70.50.122.114 02:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC:How so? Spinboy 03:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is the difference with saying that some CASA members had concerns about its direction and saying that CASA originated from concerns in CFS (as it does on the CFS entry)?

That's what I'm wondering. Spinboy 04:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But you told me to remove criticism that people have of CASA, yet CFS's page still does. What to do? Serious 04:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mention of the criticism CFS and various students have of CASA shold be made. As well, hasn't CASA been in legal trouble at times ie EDs/office staff being charged with fraud/misuse of funds? This should also be mentioned. As it stands the article is little more than a puff piece. AndyL 15:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we are airing out CASA's dirty laundry, then the same should be done for CFS. Spinboy 19:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberals

I've referenced accusations that CASA is an "apologist" for the Liberal government. The article should not state that these allegations are true but in accordance with NPOV we should make reference to the fact that the allegations exist. As for the crisis allegations not being "proven", I'm sorry Spinboy but if a criminal conviction in court does not meet your standards of proof I don't know what does. I see no reason why we shouldn't mention the conviction in the article given that it is CASA related and yes it did hurt CASA's credibility in the mid-1990s. Our job is not to protect the subjects of articles from damaging information but to be neutral and balanced which means putting forward positive and negative information in a neutral manner. AndyL 20:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for what should and shouldn't be in the CFS article, that's a subject for that article's talk page, not for this one. AndyL 20:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I went to the scholarship board's website, and it makes no mention of Usher. Is there any other proof he was appointed to the board? Our job isn't to perpetuate allegations. One could also argue that CFS is in league with the NDP. Spinboy 20:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can find proof at this webiste http://www.millenniumscholarships.ca/factbook/en/ in the fourth paragraph it refers to Alex Usher as Director of Policy and Program Development for the Foundation. Hope that suffices. Serious 21:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That works for me, thank you. Spinboy 23:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CASA vs CFS Tactics

I removed the "seen as less confrontational than those favoured by CFS" from the sentence in which you list the different resources that CASA uses in its lobbying. Although it is true that CASA does not use "rallies" or "demonstrations" as a lobbying tactic, CFS also uses postcards (used for Rae Review), petitions (petitions for tuition freezes, reductions), and meetings with governmental officials (we talked about this one already)...so it is not right to counterpoise these tactis to those of CFS.Serious 08:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U of Manitoba

U of M voted this week to leave CASA. This should be added to the article, n'est pas?AndyL 02:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went to the website of their student newspaper, and it makes no mention of it. Neither does the CASA website. Spinboy 02:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is true. The council voted yesterday. Call up the student union and hear it for yourself. The newspaper will cover it soon enough and obviously CASA would not have updated their website that quickly.Serious 04:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to call long distance for something that will come out in their newspaper during the next edition. When it does come out, then it can be updated. Spinboy 04:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want to say U of M has left CASA, cite your sources please. Spinboy 23:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Babble (discussion group on Rabble) but the new Manitoban should be online in a day or so. Anyway, the prospective membership in CFS is in the Manitoban article I added to external links so I don't know why you exised that. AndyL 23:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UMSU leaves CASA - or are you alleging that this is a lie? If so I guess we can wait a day or so but I don't see why it's necessary.AndyL 00:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I left the article you had provided in the ext links section. That link is fine, I will be more satisfied when the actual article comes out, but for now I'll let it go. --Spinboy 00:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U Sask

Apparently, the University of Saskatchewan is also reconsidering its membership in CASA. AndyL 03:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does no one around here know how to use headers? :p --Spinboy 04:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The USSU sure did leave. Here is the proof: http://www.ussu.ca/pdfs/usc/minutes/uscmin01-26-06.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.201.219.246 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Members

You don't want the CFS article to list those who left, yet this one should even if we remove the members section? That's not neutral. --Spinboy 04:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can't have linkage between articles, sorry (ie you can't remove something from one article because of a disagreement in another article). My objection is not to listing schools that have left CFS but to listing schools that have left CFS *without* also having a full list of members - I was quite clear about that. That has nothing to do with the CASA article which has both such lists. I"m sorry spinboy but your pro-CASA POV pushing is not only tiresome, it's getting irrational. If you want to have a list of schools that have left CFS then also put in a full list of CFS members in order to provide balance. The fact that you want to list negative information about CFS but can't bear to add a something positive, ie a full list of current members suggests that you are not interested in NPOV editing but instead have your own agenda. AndyL 05:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed both the members and those who left lists from this article. That's neutral. --Spinboy 05:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had even removed the "Founding" members. Spinboy 05:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You removed *factual* information without cause because of a disagreement in another article. That's not acceptable. AndyL 05:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And moreover you did so because you were unwilling to add positive facts about CFS to the CFS article in order to balance out something negative. In so doing you've demonstrated a bias. AndyL 05:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You removed *factual* information as well. Putting CFS' entire membership list in would take up a huge amount of space. I'm adding in what I am to balance out the facts you are putting in. --Spinboy 05:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy, it's a bit like having an article about a war, listing one side's casualties but refusing to list the other side's. Listing one set of facts but not the other, as you did in the CFS article, is biased. Removing both sets of factds from one article because you don't want to list both sets of facts in the other is also biased. AndyL 05:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"You removed *factual* information as well. Putting CFS' entire membership list in would take up a huge amount of space" Oh, you mean it would show that out of CFS' membership only a small number have left? Ie it would give a fuller picture? We have many articles with much longer lists than the one which would be required in the CFS article. The problem, if you have a POV, is it would effectively neutralise the negative information provided by the list of departing schools by showing that many, many more schools have not left. Isn't that really the problem for you? And since the number of ex-CASA schools is a much larger proportion of CASA's over all membership a pissing war between CASA and CFS on which federation has is doing better in winning and retaining schools would end up being won by the CFS. Isn't that really the problem you're having?AndyL 05:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...which federation has is doing better in winning and retaining schools would end up being won by the CFS." And you are showing your bias here by saying that CFS is winning over CASA. It shouldn't be a CFS vs CASA thing at all. Yet we are both making it out to be that way. --Spinboy 05:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can think of no other explanation for your attempt to remove balanced and factual information from the CASA article, nor for your rather poor excuse for not wanting to display all the facts in the CFS article. But yes, objectively, I think it's hard not to conclude that CFS is more successful among student unions than CASA given the size of both organizations and the severity of CASA's attrition compared to CFS'. AndyL 05:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Within the past four years CASA has lost, what, 1/3 of its members while CFS has had a net gain of members. That attrition, plus the fact that CFS is much larger to start with, makes it hard not to conclude that CASA is in some trouble and yes, one can be NPOV and conclude that based on the facts just as one can be NPOV and conclude from the facts that the NDP has had a poor electoral record over the past decade. AndyL 05:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No need to insult me, thankyouverymuch. And objectively for me I think it's hard not to conclude that CFS is an ineffective organization. (Yes, I am a bit biased. I try not to unbalance an article because of that.) But seeing as this is the talk page it looks pretty unbaised except for the member list that I object to. --Spinboy 05:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least you're admitting that you were biased in regards to the list. Now we can put it aside and move on. Again, I have no problem with listing schools that have left CFS in the CFS article as long as we also have a list of all CFS schools or at least of schools that have joined. It's misleading to say that 5 schools have left but not say that six have joined in the same period (I'm just picking numbers out of the air for the purpose of illustration). AndyL 05:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've read the history here, and I'm wondering if there is anything still in dispute. AndyL makes good case for inclusive additions, as to the listing of all members being too long... then I'd suggest a comprimise of listing the initial membership in each organization, and a current tally of members who remain and who have left. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I still object to the listing of orgs that left here, and not in the CFS article. -- Spinboy 04:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So list the associations that have left CFS then. My problem isn't with information being listed, it's with your past desire for the information to be selective so as to put one group in a better light and another in a worse light. IE if the schools that have left CFS are listed then the schools that have *not* left should also be listed along with those that have joined. Same with CASA. OK? AndyL 08:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent that the schools that have left CFS be listed *without* listing schools that are still in CFS and those who have joined? Don't you see why it's misleading to list the first without listing the others?AndyL 08:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winds are Changing Again + McGill

• I've added details of the lesser known The Winds are Changing Again document, written by Nick Vikander of McGill and his counterpart at U of A in 2001. The document was an attempt to fix the perceived stagnation and problems of CASA. I've also added more details to SSMU's (McGill) withdraw from CASA pm_shef 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Liberal Issue

The comments with respect to ties to the Liberal Party used as evidence a national director going to work for the Liberal Party (hardly an example of clear ties), and a pieing incident that no one publicly took credit for. This was followed by a comment that being close to the Liberals "has advantages." It looked more like an argument between two partisans sides than a NPOV treatment of an issue in an encyclopedia.

If you want some kind of mention that CASA is thought to be close to the Liberals, it should have the name of the person or organization making the allegations attached. Likewise, if you want to mention that this alleged proximity to the Liberal Party has produced results, it should cite external sources saying as much. This article shouldn't be a forum for "impressions," and the (inevitable) bickering that results. I realize it might be hard to cite sources when the issues aren't well addressed in student media, but that is probably a sign that the issues aren't suitable for this article.

I removed the comments. If someone would like to take another stab at addressing the issue, please go ahead, but I don't think it adds much to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.223.100 (talk • contribs).

• I'm going to readd the allegation itself, simply because it is widespread and probably the most common criticism of the group (just as with CFS and the NDP). In terms of the other issues, you make a good point. -- pm_shef 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)