Talk:Canadian Association for Equality

CAFE used feminists’ names on charity application
I think this should be included in article - definitely a point of controversy --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I object on the same grounds that my suggestion of including a 'controversy' section to the National Organization for Women was denied. If that story turns out to be a significant free-standing event, I am sure a case can be made to create its own Wikipedia page.Billturner1983 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Expansion and Re-Organization
I have just spent some time expanding, updating, and re-organizing this article. When I happened across it it appeared to be very disjointed and to have some odd inclusions/omissions, so I have amalgamated several short sections into a longer one which outlines the group's policies and activities more clearly, added some new information to the "controversies" section, updated the section on the Center for Men and Families to reflect that the centre has now opened, and added a large number of references. On looking at the history of the article it appears that significant and well-cited information has been removed in the past without explanation, in the future if people are going to remove, retitle, or gut sections of the article I would encourage them to state their reasons for doing so here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Justin Trottier
For some unknown reason, Justin Trottier has not been forthcoming about his role with CAFE. According to the charity application, he is the Chair. And according to other sources, he is also the founder and spokesperson. The article should reflect this.


 * Charity Application

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

POV agenda-push
"CAFE is sometimes portrayed as a moderate and academic voice in the movement centred on men's issues,[16] particularly by members of men's movement, such as author Warren Farrell.[17] Other media reports, however, have characterized the group as a men's rights organization..."

I'm failing to see why this paragraph pits two views (1) ..a moderate..voice in the movement centred [sic] on men's issues" & 2)...characterized the group as a men's rights organization".

The "however" combined with a differentiated set of sources/citations, clearly insinuates that these viewpoints are at opposites with each other, or that one viewpoint (1) is how an author or two sees it vs. "Media reports". Notice the clearly excessive linking (excised here) after the last sentence. So why? What's the agenda and why the dark insinuations? Comments please - if none I intend to delete the inflammatory language and combine the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B153:16D8:0:2F:3159:4D01 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The "excessive linking" is the product of someone using multiple sockpuppets to continually trying to edit all references to the men's rights movement out of the article, despite the fact that virtually every major third party, reliable news source which has covered CAFE characterizes and refers to it as a men's rights group. If there's been a "POV agenda push" in this article, it's the one mounted by the article creator and his socks to sanitize the article and remove information which he/she has a problem with for whatever reason.  The large number of sources are there to demonstrate that there can be no doubt (based on the available reliable sources) that CAFE is a men's rights group, and to make it clear that any further attempt to remove that information is in itself a "POV agenda push."


 * As for the "however" that you refer to in that paragraph, I think it's actually a reference to CAFE's (alleged) association with A Voice For Men, which is in the second half of that sentence. Whether or not you agree that there is such an association, several of the cited sources (actually, all of the cited sources) do make that connection.  And that would certainly suggest that the group is not, as others suggest, a 'moderate voice in the movement centered on men's issues" (I don't think anyone's going to be able to argue that AVFM is "moderate!").  You're welcome to propose/try an alternate wording, just please make sure you're not removing well-cited information or pushing a pov of your own (Not to assume that you would: I only say that because I notice that this was your first edit on wikipedia - at least at this IP - and that you're not the first person to raise this exact concern.)Fyddlestix (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again,


 * I'm very dissapointed In your response. I'd addition to ignoring the substative part of my question (why does a "however," need to differentiate the 2 parts of that paragraph when as written there is no difference? The first part says " ..a moderate..voice in the movement centred [sic] on men's issues". Notice the word movement. The 2nd half states many media ".characterized the group as a men's rights organization".


 * Movement, organization...they are both the same Thing. But the way this is written implies that any men's right organization is not moderate. It's a clear backhanded POV push. I'm also very dissapointed that your reply. While on its face polite and assuming my good faith, you state at the end that I'm not the first person to raise "this exact concern".


 * When I read that edit, I was confused. While the author's edit focuses on the same kind of language as myself (a "however" innaproprietly used), that user was not even referring to the same paragraph as me. Then, when I peruse the sockpuppets link, I notice the banned user who is the subject of that investigation is the same one you compared to me (Right after pointing out its apparently the first time this IP had registered for me). How very nice of you.


 * 2601:D:CF00:16F:8DAD:24DC:5B07:6E22 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me first acknowledge that you're correct, the paragraph (and the "however") that you raised was a different one than the one in the edit I linked. That was a mistake on my part, sorry! In retrospect I phrased that last bit of my comment poorly, it was not my intent to question your motives and if it came off that way I apologize. I remain puzzled by your focus on that particular "however," though.  As I stated above, I personally think it's meant to apply/refer to any alleged links to a voice for men rather than to the men's rights movement in general. But if you read it differently, couldn't you just remove the "however?" Then the passage would read:


 * "CAFE is sometimes portrayed as a moderate and academic voice in the movement centered on men's issues particularly by members of men's movement, such as author Warren Farrell. Other media reports have characterized the group as a men's rights organization and noted that various feminist, student's, and anti-domestic violence groups have associated CAFE with more radical men's rights organizations such as A Voice for Men. CAFE spokesperson Justin Trottier has denied these allegations."


 * I'd have no problem with that so this seems like an easy fix - this is the kind of minor edit that doesn't really need to be discussed on the talk page unless it gets reverted/proves controversial (in which case we use the talk page to achieve consensus). Fyddlestix (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update:I've gone ahead and removed the "however." I also trimmed the number of footnotes while keeping the citations per WP:BUNDLING and WP:CITEMERGE. Should look smoother now but none of the info has actually been removed.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
I've had to revert a number of edits which were pretty clearly not consistent with wikipedias policies on WP:NPOV - cherry picking quotations from opinion columnists who support CAFE, quoting the group's spokesmen (but not their detractors) at length, and removing extensively and well-cited material which reflects poorly on the group is not acceptable. Before reverting or making similar edits, please read wikipediea's policies on WP:NPOV and perhaps take a gander at WP:NOT (wikipedia is not for advocacy or promotion of a group or its ideas). Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also removed a number of images, which have been tagged as lacking evidence of permission/licenses (and a couple of them nominated for deletion) on wikimedia. If evidence of ownership and permission is produced there, then some or all of those images can be restored to the article, but they can't be in there now as they appear to have just been lifted from google and there's no evidence that this was done with the original author's permission. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Feminism
IS this article within scope the project it is included, especially considered that the said project explicitly states on its portal that it is only regarding Womens issues. Uamaol (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)