Talk:Justin Trottier

Article changes

Hi Harizotoh9, you suggested discussing this article here. I reverted to my earlier version while we discuss. The prior version to which you returned the article failed to incorporate significant aspects of Trottier's work that makes him notable, while focusing unduly on untrustworthy news sources, even incorporating an article where he was simply quoted saying "no comment." I couldn't understand why the "no comment" was seen as more significant than Trottier's weekly appearances on radio and TV. Frankly it read like it was written by someone with an axe to grind against Trottier. I also added in a whole bunch of references where others had put "citation required" so I'd rather not have those removed. VanessaSmith766 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"focusing unduly on untrustworthy news sources,"

The Toronto Star is untrustworthy? I'm not 100% sure of the trustworthyness of Now Media, but hey do cite documents which purport to show that Justin Trottier founded CAFE. Are these documents forgeries? It looks like he founded these organizations, but for whatever bizarre reason is not willing to publicly say that he has. But there are multiple sources showing that he is in fact a leading Men's Rights Activist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's wholly inaccurate to characterize the Toronto Star and NOW as "untrustworthy" news sources. The Star is the largest circulation newspaper in Canada and a newspaper of record, NOW is a well-respected weekly. I have added a couple new sentences noting Trottier's involvement with the Canadian Association for Equality, with references to multiple newspaper and other media sources. Note that he is listed as a CAFE director and presented himself as the groups spokesperson in several of these sources - for this article not to talk about Trottier's role in CAFE would be a serious omission. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, there are multiple sources attributing this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Now even many more, which also include him being the director, including the CTV source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

CAFE

Why are all references to Trottier's involvement in the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) being removed? His involvement with the group is well documented. Please, stop removing this well-cited and well-documented information from the article without explanation. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, especially strange since he did several media appearances when he opened the CAFE center. I don't think you can get more clear cut that this: [1] --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

VanessaSmith766's recent changes:

I reverted many of the changes that User:VanessaSmith766 made.

The opposition is from feminist-oriented domestic violence groups. Many other domestic violence groups, like the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness and Gatehouse, support the Centre)

First, this would need a citation. Second, if true this would mean the change to the article would mean adding information about their support, not removing citations and information about the opposition from those groups.

It makes no sense to quote Trottier from the article. He has been quoted in hundreds of articles. It is inconsistent with a fair accounting of his bio to single out one quote from one particular article)

The idea is to give some sense of what the campaign is. Simply removing it just leaves the section merely mentioning that he was the spokesperson for the campaign, but never explaining anything about it. Also, it's useful since he seems to be alluding to the need for a Center for men, which is what he later ended up founding. Perhaps it could be written better. Summarizing the interview rather than direct quotes.

"controversial men's rights" should be left up to the reader to decide and not used as an objective description of the organization.

I've tried to make the wording more neutral, and have noted that the media describes it as a Men's Rights group.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the quote again. You did not address my point. Trottier has been interviewed in hundreds of articles. If we are going to pull two lines worth of quotes from one of those articles, shall we go ahead and do the same for a hundred more articles on the same reasoning that it is required in order to explain the various other positions that he holds? If not, why have you singled out one particular article VanessaSmith766 (talk)User:VanessaSmith766

I think the "controversial men's rights" group should be left in - heck, it's in the headline of multiple articles about CAFE and its activities, and news coverage of CAFE seems to suggest that the group really is constantly the subject of controversy. Examples: Those are all reliable, reputable sources which agree that CAFE and its endeavors are indeed controversial. To say that the group is controversial is not controversial, in fact virtually everyone seems to agree on that. I think the article should reflect this. More generally, I support the reversion in general, and I do not think VanessaSmith's edits reflect a NPOV. I'm particularly troubled by the removal of multiple references in an edit (that's just one example, see also here and here) where justification is given only for the removal of one source, or no justification was given at all. This is something that I've already asked this editor not to do.

The information that is in the article now is well-referenced with links to multiple newspaper and other news sources. There is no justification for removing that information unless a significant number reliable references can be produced that contradict them. Certainly I don't buy the argument that the Toronto Star, Metro, Global News, and NOW are all somehow "unreliable" when it comes to their coverage of Trottier and CAFE. As far as I can tell, there can be no doubt that these are all reliable sources per WP:Reliable. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

It would be most neutral to say "Described by media publications such as The Toronto Star as controversial" or something to that effect. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting from the Toronto Star article

I have removed the 3 line quote from the toronto star article. I never received a response to my point. Why are we including two quotes from one particular article, and none from any other articles, when trottier has been interviewed in hundreds of articles? If we insist on leaving in those quotes, perhaps we should then add quotes from a few dozen other articles, although that may considerably lengthen this wikipedia entry VanessaSmith766 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa, have you read the article? After your last disagreement with Harizotoh9 over this, I actually took a stab at substituting a paraphrase of what Trottier said, but it's actually pretty difficult to do so in a way that doesn't either sound really awkward or seem inappropriate for a BLP article. Given the controversial subject matter here, I think a direct quote is the easiest and simplest way to convey Trottier's motivation and rationale for the men's issues campaign. Bottom line, Trottier said those things and was quoted in a reliable source, so there's really no reason why they can't be included here. In my opinion, the quotes are the simplest and clearest way to explain Trottier's stance on gender issues at the time of the Men's Issues Awareness campaign.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, to add something - did you notice that the quotation there now is a different one from what was there before? I was trying for a compromise between you and Harizotoh9, and thought I had picked a quote that explained his stance well but was less likely to be construed as a problem by anyone. The quote seems really quite innocuous, I honestly don't see what the issue is. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Trottier. 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/20120319144359/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=opinions&articleID=870&month=3&day=15&year=2006 to http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=opinions&articleID=870&month=3&day=15&year=2006
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=209b64c6-25ea-4902-95d9-d770d2508725&sponsor=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=d6869281-4661-46c9-8cb8-d922d923d926&sponsor=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eyeweekly.com/city/features/article/109202

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) 23:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)