Talk:B'nai Brith Canada

[Untitled]

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)

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)

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)

Undue weight

I've added an "undue weight" tag to the MHRC section, per my comments in a prior edit summary. I do not dispute that the subject matter is encyclopedic, but the length and level of detail are completely unwarranted. I could add that this problem has also surfaced on other pages dealing with Human Rights Commissions in Canada. CJCurrie (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this has been removed from the Canadian Human Rights Commission Free Speech Controversy (because it does not deal with the Federal HRC), this article is the best place for it for the time being (the Manitoba Human Rights Commission) does not have its own article. Please note that it reflects B'nai Brith in a positive light - (i.e. people claimed that the organization had engaged in racist/discrimintory activity when in fact there was no evidence to ever support such a claim).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Again, I am not questioning that the subject matter is appropriate to this article. What I take issue with is its length and excessive detail. (I realize some people might find this ironic, given that I'm known for writing long pages. My response is that I'm not in the habit of going into this much detail about a single development.) CJCurrie (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why this section of the article being so detailed is unwarranted. A five-year investigation by the MHRC against B'nai Brith on the basis of a few hearsay statements, which cost millions of taxpayer dollars, and which B'nai Brith was not even allowed to see the "evidence" against it, is certainly notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

B'nai Brith Canada has been around for a long period of time and has been involved in numerous public campaigns and controversies. There's no need for this one particular matter to take up half the article. Concerning your arguments in defense of BBC, I can only say that they are irrelevant to questions of length and detail. CJCurrie (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, a full explanation as to the circumstances of the investigation and the results are certainly relevant.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

A summary of the key points is sufficient. And I'll grant that we're closer now. CJCurrie (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's current configuration is fine. I'm reluctant to remove the specific criticisms of the investigation and B'nai Brith's response.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B'nai Brith Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=755930
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701085855/http://www.cjnews.com/canada/bnai-brith-canada-sell-its-national-hq to http://www.cjnews.com/canada/bnai-brith-canada-sell-its-national-hq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on B'nai Brith Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702041407/http://www.bnaibrith.ca/prdisplay.php?id=1520 to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/prdisplay.php?id=1520
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107093129/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200910282272/B-nai-Brith-Canada-disagrees-with-Cotler-s-proposed-Gaza-inquiry.html to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200910282272/B-nai-Brith-Canada-disagrees-with-Cotler-s-proposed-Gaza-inquiry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026074138/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/About-Us.html to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/About-Us.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101020201216/http://bnaibrith.ca/prdisplay.php?id=1350 to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/prdisplay.php?id=1350

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B'nai Brith Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103124651/http://databank.isranet.org/article.asp?article=46966 to http://databank.isranet.org/article.asp?article=46966
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918180646/http://bnaibrith.ca/files/290908%282%29.pdf to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/files/290908%282%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on B'nai Brith Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823010727/http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Brith+complaint+preceded+university+withdrawal/1838268/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Brith+complaint+preceded+university+withdrawal/1838268/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)