Talk:B'nai Brith Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The previous edit does not reflect the overwhelming consensus of the organization’s grassroots members, consisting of thousands of families from across Canada.

With respect, the consensus that matters here is the consensus of Wikipedia editors. I have no objection to a separate article on B'nai Brith Canada - I suspect it meets notability requirements - but the version that I reverted was basically advertising copy. Because of that, an editor requested that it be speedy deleted. Instead of deleting it, I restored the redirect.

I guess what I'm saying is, feel free to take another crack at writing an article for BBC specifically, but do so with a neutral point of view and in an encyclopaedic fashion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now restored an earlier, non-promotional version of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to the redirect. We (BBC) feel the edit by CJCurrie presents an oversimplified and negatively biased view of the organization. Hardly a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.96.134 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(i) CJCurrie did not write the edit in question, (ii) I can't help but notice the anon IP listed above has been criticized for vandalism several times, (iii) you don't have the right to delete pages you don't like. CJCurrie (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that this article has some NPOV issues as it now exists, probably placing undue emphasis on the controversy. I don't think that's reason to restore the redirect, but it would be nice if somebody with more knowledge of the subject than I have could add in some material less related to the controversy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protected the article for one week due to persistent edit-warring. Please try to reach consensus on this talk page for changes. If you are unable to do so, please make use of WP:THIRD and/or WP:RFC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected it again, this time for two weeks. I think it would behoove our friend the I.P. to discuss changes here, lest their edits become viewed as vandalism, which may result in semi-protection (a state of affairs in which he/she couldn't edit, but others could). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit

Issue has been resolved. It’s also completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the organization’s scope of activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.232.30 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This internal “rebellion” of 12 members was settled. If you think 0.003% of the proposed due paying members is a significant number or has any relevance to the ongoing work of this organization, you’re wrong. --99.231.232.30 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are so interested in moderating this maybe you should do a bit of reasearch to keep it balanced.

"B'nai Brith Canada responded with the following statement: "After a thoughtful and careful process of deliberation, the disciplinary committee of B'nai Brith Canada unanimously decided to expel a handful of disgruntled individuals for 'conduct unbecoming a member of B'nai Brith Canada, contrary to the best interests of the organization.' These eight individuals who received expulsion orders represented the most blatant cases of members seeking to undermine and bring harm to the organization.

"In the remaining 13 cases under review by the disciplinary committee, five were dismissed, whereas the other eight voluntarily came forward to disassociate themselves from Concerned Members [of BBC] and reaffirmed their B'nai Brith membership."

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14190&Itemid=86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.232.30 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)