Talk:PROFUNC

Images

The images in the article are relevant and pertain to communism or anti-communism, which is what the article is about. Zabanio (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They are random symbols associated with communism, not specific images which illustrate the specifics in this article. They don't belong here. → ROUX ₪ 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was the CBC that uncovered the story and they are mentioned in the first sentence beside the CBC image. Do you have a suggestion for another image? The other images are not random, they are relevant to the article, anti-communism, the Red star of communism and a Canadian penitentiary where the people would be interned. Zabanio (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So it was the CBC. Big deal... should the CNN logo be in the article about the 9/11 attacks, simply because they had coverage all day? of course not. it's irrelevant and descends to the level of trivia, which is not what we are here for. → ROUX ₪ 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roux, I don't think that the CBC's investigative journalism that found the information is trivial; however, do you have a suggestion for an alternative image to take it's place? Zabanio (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be an image at all. Unless an image directly illustrates the subject of an article, there is no need for it to be included. Also please learn how to use indents properly. → ROUX ₪ 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the images were needed. The penitentiary is ok, since it's part of the program, and the image is freely licensed. Using unfree logo, seems to be a violation of the rules. --Rob (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know why Zabiano put them back in. Zabiano... there is so far agreement that the images don't belong. Please stop putting them back in. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

The further reading section should be removed, unless there are actually books that mention the program. I'm pretty sure there are no such books, since the story is so new. --Rob (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The books are related to the subject as they all deal with the communist issues in Canada during the Cold War, which is what the article is about. Zabanio (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The article is about a very specific program, not about communist issues in Canada during the Cold War. I never think Further Reading sections are useful anyway, as they are inherently POV. This section should be removed. → ROUX ₪ 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further reading is not "related reading". It's so people can read more about the specific topic of the article. It should include books that could have be used as references on the topic, but weren't for this article, for whatever reason. --Rob (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I rated the article "C" class today, mostly on the strength of its referencing and inline citations. I get the impression that there may be more to the story, however. Also, the photo of Collins Bay Penitentiary that's currently in the article needs a better caption. PKT(alk) 12:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the list

One of the first sentences of this article currently reads: "With the 1945 Gouzenko Affair occurring in Canada, which triggered the Cold War and the threat of the Korean War becoming the precursor for the Third World War, the Government of Canada in 1950 determined a need to create the PROFUNC blacklist."

No one specific event can be said to have "triggered the Cold War." Even if one were to point to a specific event as the proximate cause of the Cold War, it would not be the Gouzenko Affair. (Truman's 1947 address to Congress where he announced US military and economic support for Greece and Turkey, or Stalin's decision to blockade land access to Berlin in 1948 would be better candidates, but this is not an article about the origins of the Cold War.) "The threat of the Korean War becoming the precursor for the Third World War" is also overbroad, not to mention awkwardly phrased.

However, if this sentence merely paraphrases the reasons the authors of PROFUNC gave to initiate the program, then this should be made explicit to the reader.

Additonally, "the Government of Canada in 1950 determined a need to create the PROFUNC blacklist" needs to be clarified. Did the entire government agree on this need? Or was it a secret program unknown to many in the legislative or executive branch?--Mcattell (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

All the links to the CBC sites are 404. Off to the Wayback Machine. --ggatin (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits, ATTN: IQ125

Posting to the talk page, as indicated to User:IQ125 after undoing my reversion of their reversion. I have removed the image of the Collins Bay Institution (which was vaguely captioned in the article as "Canadian Penitentiary" with a link to the Correctional Service) because it seems to serve no purpose other than being a picture of a jail, and does not seem to be related to PROFUNC in any way. If Collins Bay specifically is related to PROFUNC, such as being one of the planned internment facilities, it should be indicated as such in the caption. Otherwise per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE it should not be added again.

I have also restored the wikilink to COINTELPRO as it is a related topic, being a similar program in the similar time period with a similar goal of gathering intelligence on subversives. The editor's contention that "this is a distinctly Canadian article" is not sufficient justification to remove the link from the See Also section since, per MOS:ALSO, "the links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." For reference, the COINTELPRO article also maintains a link to this article in its See Also section as a similar project. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 20:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's work together and build a better article, okay. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@IQ125: I agree, so what is your response to what I wrote above? Last time that I reached out to you there was no response. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)