Talk:Canadian Federation of Students/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

POV

My issue is from: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone. Ardenn 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

IF YOU CAN NOT SPELL PROPERLY OR USE GRAMMAR CORRECTLY, YOU SHOULD NOT BE POSTING INFORMATION ON A RESOURCE SITE!! IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT 'FACTS' ARE CORRECT WHEN A BASIC GRASP OF EITHER OF CANADA'S OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IS SO OBVIOUSLY LACKING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger97 (talk • contribs) --

Language

Can someone who has better skills with the language known as french, translate this page :)Dr sean chronic RSX 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Accusation

Please stop reverting edits on accusations that have no basis in reality. Has anyone produced evidence that a lawsuit has been filed against the UPEI students union? Is there any evidence that lawyers letters have been sent to anyone other than Mr. Gregory? You can't just make up accusations and put them in an encyclopedia. You're not Stephen Colbert.

"Sam Rahimi, former VP External of the Students' Administrative Council, was quoted as saying "These people are worse than the Church of Scientology" after receiving a cease and desist letter. Student newspapers, most recently The Eyeopener at Ryerson, have also been served with similar letters." If you can't provide a source for these quotes and accusations then please don't post them in the article. If this did happen then it shouldn't be hard to find a citation for it.

-- I don't think it would be that hard to find citations for these claims. I'm actively invovled in issues surrounding the CFS and I think it would be inappropriate for me to be editing the article, but I can attest that they exist if one looks for the information. 24.68.210.73 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, you can provide sources on this discussion page and let others integrate them into the article, even if you have a conflict of interest. So long as you don't edit the article yourself, you can't violate editorial integrity. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

USSU

The USSU is not a member of the CFS, as per order of the Sask Court of Appeal, it is no longer a controversy. Citation should be online in the next couple of days, at which point I will update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullSmash26 (talk • contribs) 10:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

CFS Membership Listing

The membership listing that appears on this page is relevant given the fact that the Canadian Federation of Students is a large, national organization, comprised of student unions from across Canada. Listing its membership in this circumstance is no different from listing the membership for groups such as NATO, APEC, OPEC, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwahahax (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WAX, but aside from that, it was large and bulky, and it added nothing to the article. It really took away from it and was an eyesore. GreenJoe 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
While I do not entirely agree, I take your point. Should we then remove Student Unions that have left CFS. It would seem largely irrelevant and out of context without a listing of current members. Bwahahax 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to taking those out, but I left it because I read on the talk pages of this and CASA that there had been a dispute about that previously, and I didn't want to go there. GreenJoe 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. --GreenJoe 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Days of action

I removed the bit about the days of action from the article, because they're held every year, and thus not particularly notable. If it was a one-time thing, I might reconsider. GreenJoe 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Day of action is not an annual event. They have occurred in 1996, 2000, 2001. 2005 and 2007, I believe. The claim that they're an annual event is a popular misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.223.51 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Section about Staff

I took this out because of serious lack of neutrality. I'm not about to re-write it but an encyclopedia article is not supposed to have back handed comments in brackets (for example "(and less self-interested)"). Not to mention that there are many assumptions (a majority of passive / unwitting participants ) that are simply unfounded (where is the research, where are the numbers? where is the proof?). I'd also make it much more clear who is saying what instead of having "according to some" or "suggested to some." It is vague and can be misleading. The first paragraph does it right : "A 1998 article in the Simon Fraser University student newspaper The Peak accused CFS of being corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centred, and a form of clique, with their people getting jobs in the NDP or Liberal governments." That is neutral. The section I erased is not.


(this is what was erased) "The longtime involvement in CFS of Link (and of other professional staffers whose students status has long since diminished or lapsed but whose longevity and age affords them great influence), when contrasted with the passive or even unwitting participation of most of the fee paying membership of CFS, has suggested to some that while Canadian, the Canadian student movement as articulated by CFS is neither much of a movement nor primarily comprised of students [1] [2] [3], instead being a student-funded vehicle which has in the past been easily captured by a small number of national players. The presumption that the mass of post-secondary students in Canada with their disparate economic and social circumstances could or would ever coalesce around any issue more important (and less self-interested) than tuition is according to some opinion a fiction, a fiction which is nevertheless necessary as a founding myth of CFS [4] [5]."

Silentpat 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

changes to history, BC decision and referendum tactics

"CASA today has 18 member organizations." ---not relevant to the CFS

"In addition, CFS has been accused of being too close to the New Democratic Party (NDP). [6] Conversely, CASA has been accused of being too close to the Liberal Party of Canada.[7]" I moved this from history to controversy as it's an accusation that has lasted years and is not really a historical event.

"A BC provincial government decision in 2001 to include CASA as well as CFS representatives (who had previously had exclusive access) on the government's education committee was challenged on the floor of the legislature by an unsuspecting government backbench MLA who had been fed misleading information suggesting that CFS was somehow losing access [8]." The only thing on that page about the CFS is a question from H. Bloy and an answer from S.Bond that explains that the governement was "opening up the process to all students in BC and will not exclude studens form the CFS". There is nothing about the MLA being mislead or about the MLA being unsuspecting. A better source should be used if this is to be included in the entry.

"Controversy has emerged repeatedly over the referendum tactics employed in CFS affiliation/deaffiliation referendums, particularly as regards the pro-CFS side [9], as well as regarding the tactics used to implement and maintain CFS-run programs on campuses [10]." The joeycoleman.ca link is broken and the straight.com article does not discuss any "tactics" used by the cfs. It states that people who were loyal to the CFS would have prefered the CFS health plan to the Gallivan option and now the people who were partial to the CFS plan are on the board of directors. That is hardly "repeated controversy over the implementation and maintain of CFS-run programs." Again, I'm not disputing the claims-- they could be right, they could be false-- but they need to be well cited from a reputable source. It needs to be explicit information or many examples before you can claim something like "repeated controversy." Silentpat 08:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The link on joeycoleman.ca (my website) is broken, however, the decision has been placed online here: http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/judgments/2006/QB2006/2006skqb462.pdf FullSmash26 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Edits to Current Issues and parts of other sections:

Removed university of Western Ontario issue since it is about a decade old (therefore not current) and has been settled (therefore not current).

Removed the University of Toronto issue since it seems like it is an old membership news story. Also, the part dealing with the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance seems in no way to be relevant to the CFS.

Removed the Memorial University issue as it is 5 years old and not current or relevant to the CFS.

Removed the Ryerson Student's Union issue as it is not an issue of the CFS. Internal decisions of the Ryerson Student Union seem not to be relevant to an article about the CFS.

Removed the Lakehead University Students Union issue for the same reason as removing the Ryerson issue.

Removed the Rock the Vote issue as it is 2 years old and seems to be irrelevant to the CFS.

Removed the Bob Rae issue as it is 4 years old and is not an issue unless there is reason to list all of the decisions by the government on PSE issues that are in-line or out of line with CFS campaigns and policy. Also, the campaign seems overly specific to CFS-Ontario and irrelevant to this CFS article.

Edited the Saskatchewan Students' Union issue for accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocandu1976 (talk • contribs)

I reverted your edits. You shouldn't be removing sourced information. That's vandalism. GreenJoe 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References to CASA:

Edited out the reference to CASA as it is about CASA not the Canadian Federation of Students. It also continues the idea that CASA exists solely to be the right-wing student movement whereas the CFS is the left-wing student movement. Members of CASA and the CFS disagree with this and there is nothing referenced in the policies or actions of either organization to backup this claim. In fact, the CFS has (as referenced) been able to get what it lobbies for from Conservative governments (national and provincial) as well as Liberal governments both national and provincial. Hardly something that happens when you have partisanship in the actions of the organizations.

Edited and amalgamated the sections referring to The Peak:

The Peak editorial position has been critical of the CFS for many years. In the last few years there have been regular editorial articles critical of the CFS and it makes more sense to have them listed together instead of listing each one separately. Also, much of the information in the articles has either been shown to be false and misleading.

References to Mr. Link and Mr. Gregory:

I am unsure why there are many references to individual staff members of the CFS or bloggers. This article is about the Canadian Federation of Students, not about Mr. Link or Mr. Gregory. I have removed the content that is solely around accusations and (what seem to be) rumors about Mr. Link from this page since all of the bad things stated about Mr. Link seem to be only accusations in editorial pages of the student press. I have also removed the statements that are of direct reference to Mr. Gregory. There seems to be no reason to mention a blogger (even if they have a distinct anti-cfs editorial stance). I would suggest links to their sites under External Links or to their own wiki entry.

Last time I checked, editorial fact-checking of most student papers is not that high. I am not saying that this is necessarily something about the student press that needs to change but I question the ability to cite personal blogs and student paper editorials as wikipedia references. People are accused of many things on blogs, that doesn't make it newsworthy and it should not appear on wikipedia entries about organizations that they happen to be employed at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocandu1976 (talk • contribs)

If it's cited and referenced, it belongs in the article. We don't want CFS propaganda. It's meant to be a balanced, factual article. Not as an ad for CFS. GreenJoe 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GreenJoe: The last edit to the services section is relevant and factual information. I think the last paragraph in Controversy section is also a little off. I can try to edit out some of the text in the services section as to not dwarf everything else.

I also made a minor edit to the history section: "The split between the CFS and CASA has created controversy." This is in fact not true. There has never been a 'split' between CFS and CASA as if it happened suddenly in one incident. CASA was formed out of dissident SU's over a period of a few years in the early '90s.

Also, the sentence:

"A 1998 article in the Simon Fraser University student newspaper The Peak accused CFS of being corrupt, bloated, Ontario-centred, and a form of clique, with their people getting jobs in the NDP or Liberal governments.[11]"

Refers to an article that cites no sources, no reports, no authorities... It is merely an Opinion piece written over 12 years ago in a college newspaper. That is not a very credible source.


Also : "In 1998, current executive director of CFS-Services Philip Link (formerly National Director in 1990) was charged for assaulting (but acquitted) a female CFS executive member after she allegedly criticised the CFS for not doing enough to aid aboriginal students.[12] Mr Link was charged with and convicted of assault in December of 1989 for choking a student with a camera strap. The CFS has investigated charges of racism against Mr Link.[13] Although only briefly a university student himself, Link's colourful and controversial career as a professional organizer in the Canadian student movement dates back a quarter century and has included stops at Okanagan College, Langara College, CFS-BC and the national offices.[12]"

This paragraph has no relevance to the CFS. Also all of its references are deadlinks so it should not be included. As the paragraph stands now it is an unfounded accusation and it could be defamatory if this text is not properly and carefully edited. To be fair and credible, it really has got to go.

GreenJoe, I think the complete reversal of the services section is a bit heavy-handed. A lot of people reference an online encyclopedia for basic information. Well this is basic factual information that does not advocate one way or another for anyone or anything. It's the truth isn't it?

"The CFS has been accused of being too close to the [[New Democratic Party]" I got rid of this section in Controversy as it the link is dead. In light of this, I'm not sure the other remaining sentence in the paragraph is relevant ("Conversely, CASA has been accused of being too close to the Liberal Party of Canada") I have deleted this. This article really needs to be revamped. I think the CASA wiki page could also be beefed up a little too.

this: In recent years the CFS has also been accused of being overly litigious and attempting to suppress criticism. Some student newspapers, most recently The Eyeopener at Ryerson, have been served with letters from the Federation's lawyers. A few bloggers have received cease and desist letters. Most recently, the blogger Titus Gregory received a letter related to the same story as the The Eyeopener"

has been replaced with this more accurate and neutral paragraph: "The Ryerson University student newspaper The Eyeopener has published editorials accusing the CFS of being overly litigious. It recently alleges that the CFS suppresses criticism of bloggers through cease and desist letters"

Propaganda

I reverted edits this time because of propaganda namely the stuff about the ISIC card, StudentSaver Card, Dayplanner service, etc. It's not needed in the article. GreenJoe 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe, you have reverted several of my edits in several sections and have so far been scarcely able to justify them. Stop being so heavy handed and instead enter into dialog. I am going to go ahead and re-add the services section without deleting the first paragraph (it actually compliments that paragraph nicely). I'll say this again, IT IS NOT PROPAGANDA, it is reference material and please note that this is an online commons and an encyclopedia and I'll ask you to respect that please. It happens to be of neutral language and factual, so you reverting this section is simply vandalism and it's also just plain dishonest of you. I'll also remind you to refrain from removing neutral material that has valid sources. Listing the services an organization provides to members is pertinent information and if you poke your head around wikipedia, you'll notice hundreds upon thousands of wikipages that do so.
Remember that wiki has a 3dr rule that I shouldn't have to remind you of.
It's propaganda, and I'm disputing it. GreenJoe 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Now can we calmly discuss this? Why do you so badly want those services included? Is the CFS website insufficient in advertising them? GreenJoe 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to CASA in history section has been removed. It is irrelevant. CFS is not defined by what CASA is as they are two different organizations existing separately. Nocandu1976 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys both have points. This really needs to be worked out on the talk pages until an agreement is reached. I can see the article needing an update, things are always happening. FullSmash26 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted. GreenJoe 03:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


The Services section:- It was incomplete and I only tried to flesh it out. However, GreenJoe simply called it propaganda and undid my edits without any discussion. If you see my lengthy comments you'll see that Joe didn't even respond.

Furthermore, CFS Services comprises over half of the CFS organization itself, so for reasons of necessity and fairness those sections need to stay. When people look at the CFS wiki page that information has to be there as it is basic information about the organization just like any other wiki page. It's basic factual information that should be found in a encyclopedic reference resource.

Furthermore the wikieditor `Fullsmash is Joey Coleman who is a long time anti-cfs agitator and writer, not an ``independent editor of wikipedia. He clearly has an agenda and should be banned from using wikipedia to spread misinformation and lies about the Federation. The proof is here:

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/02/21/retraction-and-apology-to-the-cfs/

Furthermore, several sentences and entire paragraph were maintained even though their neutrality and sources cited were broken or dubious at best. Citing editorials from college newspapers is generally not a good source of information as fact-checking of these articles is generally not done.

I would also like to point out again that GreenJoe and others who undid my edits offered little or no comments and justifications for doing so. I am clearly communicating out in the open here and pleading my case for all to see. I believe this wiki page needs to be seriously edited and sections need to be added in order to make this a credible source of information. The Services section must stay, a campaign section must be added as well and other info must be tweaked/removed so as to be more neutral.

Nocandu1976 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GreenJoe, what's wrong with you? you had 5 days to justify your position. 'STOP vandalizing this page!!!!' Some may think this is a bit harsh but he is obviously motivated by something other than being balanced and fair. Obviously I'm undoing your revert. Get a life.
It's propaganda. Pure and simple. GreenJoe 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Not cool to start edit-warring straight after protection expires. You need to work together and find common ground, otherwise, you may temporarily loose your editing privileges. To help, you can request third opinions, or a request for comments, Wikipedia's first steps in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is a great idea. I'll start one, though they rarely get any participation. GreenJoe 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my last warning.Any further reverts, will result in editors being blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then protect the page again, because he's adding propaganda. GreenJoe 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm game for any kind of dialog. So far I feel like I've been talking to a brick wall. Nocandu1976 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Comments by involved editors

Please summarize the material here so that respondents to the RfC can understand the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am trying to add a services section to this page. Users will want to know what over half of this organization is designed to do (provide services to students). So, I have broken down the services into individual sections and fleshed out the information. It makes to sense to leave a small and incomplete paragraph to describe these services. This is an encyclopedia that references factual information for users to read. That's what I have done and that's what I have added in the services section. Nocandu1976 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the second comment. It could use a little editing and I am unfortunately not good at editing my own work. However, CFS is really the only source for this information and it is relevant. I am curious to hear GreenJoe's response to all this. So far their is nothing from him other than he has reported my account for some kind of violation instead of trying to talk this out. and so what, I'm new to wiki. It was this CFS wiki that ultimately compelled me to get involved. What say you GreenJoe?Nocandu1976 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

--- Replies to comments by User:Skeezix1000

    • The stuff he's adding in isn't encyclopedic. It almost seems like it's a copy and paste from the CFS website. You can find all that there. Wikipedia isn't a brochure. Sure knowing about Travel CUTS is good, but they have their own article. GreenJoe 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Or rather they did have their own article, but we don't need a detailed advert about it. GreenJoe 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • CFS wants this page looking in their favour. Check out cfstruth.ca They're facing a revolt in BC. GreenJoe 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
          • That link to cfstruth.ca, a long with other heavily biased and partisan links have been sources in this wiki article long before I ever registered a wiki account. It's hardly news. The real question here GreenJoe is why are you so intent on keeping the status quo? If previous versions of this page are examined it's obvious someone heavily against CFS has been guarding this page. We need balanced and complete information on this wiki page, not politically charged rhetoric. For instance references to CASA in CFS' history is not needed nor is it relevant information. The sole purpose it seems of defining CFS by comparing it to CASA is to take cheap pot shots at CFS (hey I'm not saying they don't deserve a pot shot now and then, but does that belong on wikipedia?). No. I'm ready to work on this page and make some edits/additions but it is extremely hard when all someone else wants to do is wreck what you've done without justification. GreenJoe, please try to write more than one or two sentences, now is the time to explain your position.Nocandu1976 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Green Joe stop vandalizing this wiki, you're deletion of the ISIC card section without comments, justification is a clear violation of wiki standards. Do it again and I will report you for consistently vandalizing this wiki page. You clearly cannot write two words to save your life. You have no business editing an encyclopedic reference. Furthermore, you take issue with *my* sources? This wiki is fraught with references to editorials in student newspapers who obviously have a personal bone to pick with CFS. I have not even really begun to contest all those references. Read the other sections in this page, it reads like some bloggers incoherent tirade, oh wait, actually, one of the editors of this page is actually a right wing blogger, Fullsmash (see above) is actually Joey Coleman a blogger for Macleans (can't get much more Republican than Macleans magazine). He should be banned. We can fix this page together with the community, but the community doesn't work when vigilantes with itchy revert-trigger-fingers blows us out of the waters/wiki.Nocandu1976 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Now you're making personal attacks? That's a no-no. All I want is third party verifiable reliable sources. Newspapers are reliable. Blogs are not. CFS's own website is not. I don't want the article to be a giant CFS ad. GreenJoe 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:KEEPCOOL, both of you, please. Note the policy at WP:SELFPUB, as it relates to material published by the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I will come to my own defence. I hope that Nocandu1976's attacks are a result of him having a tough day out campaigning, and I will assume he is here in good faith to work to improve this article about his organization. Let me respond to a few points. Agitator - that I am not. I am not anti-CFS, I have reported on the CFS over a few years now as part of my role as a journalist covering post-secondary education in Canada. I am not opposed to CFS on principal as implied by that first attack.

Yes, I have also covered and commented on the CFS has a blogger. This does not mean that I should be banned from wikipedia. The accusation that I am a "right-wing" hack working for a "republican" magazine is not worthy of a response, I heard this line a few times before from this individual. It is not creditable. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not have a political censorship policy, so regardless of my view (which is classical liberalism) I am allowed to participate as an editor of Wikipedia. That's my response to the second attack.

I have been involved in Wikipedia for years, while I do not edit often now (due to the nature of my employment), I proud to continue to contribute to this encyclopedia in order to spread knowledge. I understand that Nocandu1976 is very busy with the current battle going on between the CFS and the BC independence movements. I understand how important the control of information is to the CFS, but Wikipedia is not www.yescfs.ca nor should it be. You do not see my editing this page to include the latest CFS controversy (http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/03/11/cfs-goes-to-supreme-court-to-postpone-membership-referendum/) due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. The article is written by an editor of Maclean's. Let's be clear, as a professional journalist, I cover the news fairly and as a contributer to Wikipedia, I work to bring the same level of professionalism to this project. I hope that Nocandu1976 sticks around Wikipedia for awhile and starts contributing to other articles as well, thank you for joining and I hope these two incidents are just the result of inexperience and you are here in good faith. FullSmash26 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a few days with silence, so I've gone ahead and removed the ads. I left the grad students section, but I'm sure it could do with some copyediting. GreenJoe 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The fact that it has been a few days of "silence" is no reason to edit and remove information from this page - not everyone is continually looking to edit the dictionary, most of the editors do so when they have time to look at the information presented. Tolerancelat (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure it is. So far is the consensus is that it reads like an ad. You're welcome to put it back in if you can do so without it sounding like an ad, and if you can cite 3rd party reliable sources. GreenJoe 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No GreenJoe, you don't get to undo everything like you always seem entitled to. Your edits will be undone 'till I write the edits a little differently. Just give me a little time. Let's not get into another fruitless edit war here.Nocandu1976 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Then you're obviously not listening/reading. GreenJoe 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted the 2008 Controversy section. It does not utilize any reliable and 3rd party references and is heavily laden with biased language.Nocandu1976 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from respondents to RFC

  • -GreenJoe please substantiate your edits by reference to verifiable media - this is an encyclopedia if you have a problem with CFS please confine you comments to another arena not encyclopedia([Tolerancelat)] — Tolerancelat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • GreenJoe, it would be helpful if you elaborated a little more on your concerns. I presume that you mean that the section on services reads like an advert, rather than suggesting its propaganda. It is a fine line between inappropriate promotional text and encyclopedic content sometimes. It would help if the section contained independent, third-party, reliable sources, rather than just references to CFS and CFS-related websites. The level of detail here may be excessive, and could use a good copyedit, so that it reads more like an encyclopedia and less like a promotional piece. However, the fact that CFS is behind TravelCuts, SWAP, etc. strikes me as an appropriate topic for the article to cover. If I have totally mischaracterized your concerns, please let me know. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First, disclaimer: I am not a student in Canada and I have no connection to the CFS, but I live in BC and have read some of the articles on their local actions. I have to say that reading the article, the services section does sound like a flyer. I also notice that the controversy section is particularly poorly written and seems slanted again the Peak with little to no actual reference. The current defederation of both SFU [[11]] and KSU [[12]] seem to be left out. In addition, the basis of most of the defereation movements are based on costs. Having a section on costs and the flow of money from the students to the services seems like a good addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.150.176.61 (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.