Talk:2018 York University strike

NPOV

Editorial language, lacking explanation of York University's perspective.135.0.196.51 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a weird request. You just added the material on CUPE. And then you added a tag regarding YOUR OWN edits. If you believe there should be more material on the university side, then add it alongside the massive additions you made for the other side--including a host of material that is either non-neutral or improperly sourced. If you don't like the page you wrote, fix your own material! If there are no objections from someone other than the IP address that added all the material they now dislike, I'll remove the tag within the next few days. Isingness (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The content was moved from York University and was originally written by User:BlueFeet and User:65.94.198.151. The fact that I moved it doesn't change the need for it to have cleanup. 135.0.196.51 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

So clean it up rather than drive-by tagging, be bold! Unless anyone else has an issue, this request is just silly, and unless you have specific concerns that you can't fix yourself, there is no need for this talk page discussion. Isingness (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that there has been no other editor concerned about the balance except for the IP address that added most of this material, so I will close this out and remove the banner. Isingness (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright User:Eacar94, you have re-engaged this debate. What, specifically rather than generally, do you have an issue with? Isingness (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a whole section talking about how York doesn't know how to handle the strike whereas there is no mentioning of how the union handles the strike. I will add a section about this as a whole and remove the template. Also under the security part, it is said that I quote: "which monitored and intimidated striking" I can show links to multiple videos where the external security is harassed by angry leftist students and striking members. The security was simply hired to monitor that the strikers weren't doing anything they aren't supposed to do such as allowing cars to pass on a constant rate as blocking roads completely is illegal. University security is not staffed enough to handle events at this magnitude. Eacar94 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Eacar94 - Text is based of available sources. If there are actual news sources that discuss your perspective, then we/you can add more material. Just make sure to use secondary, and not primary, sources--so, if the videos you are discussing were the subject of independent media coverage, then that would be something you could add. If they are simply YouTube clips or other non-RS sources, then they wouldn't be suitable to support content. Make sure you read WP:RS, our policy on reliable sources, just so whatever work you do, it is something in line with Wikipedia's expectations. Other than that, I am not seeing a specific issue with the balance of the page in your reply, only that you feel that other information might be available. So, unless you have a specific idea of what can be added from secondary sources, then there doesn't appear to be an argument that the page is imbalanced within the limited confines of what Wikipedia can do. Isingness (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, the section you are talking about is also not sourced to RS, so I have removed it to help address any concerns of balance on that particular subtopic. Isingness (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PublicFootageOf2018YorkStrike.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• StrikeFight.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• SocialistFightbackArt.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• StudentsAgainstStrikeArt.jpg (discussion)
• YorkFSArt.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Students Against Strike, Socialist Fightback, and York Federation of Students

Before reverting back in Students against CUPE 3903, please explain why WP:UNDUE is not an issue to your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All those groups have all been included for a while and you selectively removed one on the basis that it's a minority view because it doesn't cite Global, Toronto Star or a major news outlet. Neither does York Federation of Students or Socialist Fightback, instead they both are cited with a reliable web article just like Students Against Strike. None of the featured groups clash with the UNDUE policy as it states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." information of from varying parties have every right to be featured so long as it has a reliable source, which in the case of Students Against Strike, it does. You are using subjective criteria to remove objectively cited information. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, none of those three had legitimate WP:RS; only the group that led the occupation were reported by what Wikipedia sees as valid, third-party press--so no others qualify under the site's rules. The rest of this is interesting conversation, but not a discussion of actual Wikipedia policy. Isingness (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, students being against both York University Administration and CUPE 3903 is not a "tiny minorities" view as you claim in your edit summaries. There are many citations of it. Like Socialist Fightback or Students for CUPE 3903, Students Against Strike is a smaller group representing a significant viewpoint. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll refrain from reverting your edits for now, but I doubt it will hold up to scrutiny in the future. There was a lot of media coverage of "Students for CUPE 3903" due to their occupation of the senate chambers, but very little I believe for students against strike, York federation of students, and socialist fightback (which is a massive organization that extends beyond York, but didn't have much interaction with the strike). Likely what will happen is those 3 groups will 'disappear' from the article once someone writes a well-sourced depiction of events, because of WP:UNDUE. Finally, from what I've heard, though I can't source it, only 4 students showed up to the Student against Strike meeting. I notice this is also supported by the photo in the Excalibur article. Maybe a few more showed up to the walkout? Again, I really don't think this will stand up to future scrutiny for WP:UNDUE reasons. Finally, the citations you note in the above comment say nothing about a group called "Students Against Strike." Yes, it should be stated in the main text of the Wikipedia article that undergraduate students had various criticisms of the strike, but students complaining about the strike to a news reporter does not mean they are part of a group called "Students Against Strike." MrEvilGuy (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how many showed up to meetings and protests, but the facebook group has 300+ or so members. I've thought that perhaps a fair compromise to signify the smaller size of the group relative to the two other giants (York Administration and CUPE 3903) is to place Students Against Strike under a Third Parties section in the infobox. The smaller groups such as Students for CUPE 3903, York Federation of Students, and Socialist Fightback were placed under a Supported By: section. A "Third Parties" section will help scale the WP:UNDUE issue that you perceive. And my point about the students complaining about the strike to news reporters was that Students Against Strike shares and represents their viewpoint, not that they are members, but that the viewpoint is not a tiny minority viewpoint. Anyway, does the proposal of shrinking it under a "Third Parties" section seem like a fair compromise? SprayCanToothpick (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

3O Response:I have read the source, and read the section of the article in question. I also read the edit summaries as best I can. I do not find any WP:UNDUE problems here. They are a minor player, and the article says so. The source appears to be reliable. However, I believe this section has several other WP:OR and NPOV issues that should be addressed. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input BrianCUA, you have also brought to my attention that MrEvilGuy's edit on the Background section does not meet a neutral point of view with various bias parentheses remarks such as "(though it remains unclear why York would ever unconditionally accept all CUPE 3903's proposals rather than bargain them down)". The overall NPOV is something that's worth addressing. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation validity

As I added above, only one of the four organizations has the WP:RS to be added to the article. I have removed them as such, and very much recommend both WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS as further reading as to what sources can be used. Isingness (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Isingness. I see that you've removed several of the smaller parties (York Federation of Students, Students Against Strike, and Socialist Fightback) involved in the civil conflict from the page, despite their citations being reliable sources. You claim that they do not meet that criteria, but after reading WP:RS, I fail to see how they aren't acceptable. Could you provide me with an excerpt from that policy that contradicts the sources? Thanks. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Blogs, student papers, etc - this is pretty blatant coatracking. Marxist.ca is the site for the publication Fightback, which shares the name of the group you are adding); incidentally it is by no means a neutral, independent source (and likely not reliable)--and if they are writing about an affiliate, then it's not third-party either. This isn't about finding anything online that might be written by someone else, but if something is truly notable--ie, if it is covered significantly. It isn't about contradictory sources; it is whether your sources are good enough. Here, they are not. Isingness (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading Marxist.ca, from their self-description, they are the publication of an organization that is intended to promote something; not an independent press organization. Therefore, it does not meet WP:RS. Isingness (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The WP:SIGCOV policy applies to instances where small parties would get entire articles of their own rather than be included in sections of an articles, which isn't the case here "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article: The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." If anything it's all the more reason for them to get a minor mention in the article they are relevant too "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." I fail to see how that would be coatracking. University student newspapers have been used as reliable sources plenty of times on Wikipedia, requiring sources here to only be from large news outlets like Global or Toronto Star is subjective criteria. The removed parties should at least feature some mention in the article. Yes, they are smaller groups, and their previous inclusion mentioned that. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry SCT, but that is not an accurate interpretation of those policies. In the end, you are trying to add minor student groups that received no legitimate attention from WP:RS, and it is not subjective criteria to require legitimate sources. There is plenty of information about the event that can be supported by RS that could be added if we are looking to improve the article, as the event received a high level of coverage, but there is no reason to add trivial non-notable extraneous details. Your only argument here appears to be that a small university weekly mentioned something in passing, and this makes it notable. But that just isn't consistent with Wikipedia's rules. Isingness (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Isingness. Other information about the event with reliable sources having larger news outlets do not nullify the source provided. And to clarify, I have contributed other content from other sources throughout the article as well. To say that it's non notable is subjective as student action during the strike shouldn't be removed just because it wasn't as covered as much as other parties. A small two sentence mention indicates that it's a smaller player, as the source itself even claims. I have re-read WP:RS twice and nowhere does it forbid university newspapers as sources, especially when said paper is pertaining to university of topic. I feel that if we took this discussion to to the dispute resolution board, others would conclude that Excalibur is indeed a reliable source. Thanks for taking the time to discuss with me, looking forward to your next response.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the result at Reliable Sources noticeboard and agree with the result. Excalibur is already being used to anchor the Rhonda Lenton expenses scandal, so using it for a minor single sentence mention of one of the three student groups requested above is fair if we are keeping the accusations against the York president. I further note that the RSN recommendation states specifically that the groups should not be added to the Infobox, and that the other two groups still have no WP:RS available for their addition to the page. The discussion, for historical purposes, can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Is_Excalibur_a_reliable_source?. Isingness (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the RSN Isingness, I know this has been a long debate but I do appreciate your dedication to help improve this page. I have now included the information agreed upon. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, as our past discussion was very dated, there are a few new articles covering the strike that have been released since. If I (or others) provide these newer articles from larger and more established outlets as sources, would that be enough to warrant the three other student groups mention in the info-box as lesser parties? Multiple sources would help meet WP:SIGCOV. I think I saw another article or two mention these three groups. I'll have to check again, but I believe that one is Maclean's; the very same source that we have used on this very page to cite various information and Students For CUPE's inclusion. I'm going to look into it, let me know your thoughts. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to discuss any new sources, no sense on speculating on their veracity beforehand, but I suggest given the length or prior discussions that no additions be made unless there is consensus--either way. Isingness (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for the late response. Previously an issue with the inclusion of other student groups in the info-box was that there weren't enough reliable sources to meet wp:sigcov. I've found another reliable source that gives an overview of the strike and it briefly mentions both Students Against Strike and the York Federation of Students^{(This old ref established as null)} as being involved in the civil conflict. This new source is both in print and online (https://www.macleans.ca/education/how-the-longest-canadian-university-strike-in-history-changed-life-at-york/). It's Maclean's, the same source we used to include information about Students For CUPE 3903 on this page. I propose that certain student groups in the info-box, be listed under a header titled Lesser Third Parties to indicate that they are smaller groups relative to the major players; York Administration and CUPE 3903. Do you think this would be fair? I think it makes sense to include more information on student actions during the strike. Thanks Isingness, looking forward to your response an analysis of the source! SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I think I would start by saying that the Infobox isn't for things like this; it is for an overall view of the major components of the page (not what could be seen as major, but what actually takes up a large/major portion of the text). So I would still agree with the mediator that trying to stuff in other minor groups that did not receive major coverage wouldn't be appropriate--both in terms of what the Infobox is supposed to be and in terms of fairly representing what is actually significant about the strike. The major issue is what the function of the Infobox is intended to be--not a source of new information, but an overview of the major aspects of the page content. So these minor mentions wouldn't lead to content that would be considered significant enough to cover in the Infobox itself. What is probably a bigger gap in the page now is any mention of the continued negotiations between the parties, though I'm not sure that's been covered in the press yet. There still isn't a contract after a year and four months of negotiations, which is a larger issue that someone who created a Facebook group disagreed with other undergrads on who should support who. Good on them for getting a passing mention in a news piece, but it's not enough to have more than a small mention in the copy of the entry.Isingness (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

While I disagree with the notion of larger and more significant information nullifying the inclusion of smaller information, I can see where you're coming from regarding the info-box and I will comply. I also agree with the mediator as an outside view is helpful. Thanks for your time, understanding Isingness, I really do appreciate it. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

On another note: to put the source to good use, I'm going to attach it as a secondary source to already existing information (not adding in new content with it or touching the info-box, just providing an additional citation to existing material). I hope that's okay. Thanks. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I know there are third-party sources for Fightback's involvement because I read them at the time; the tl;dr is that Fightback have a pretty foul reputation with Toronto leftist groups and weren't playing nicely with linking their activist efforts to other groups, also there were allegations of sexual harassment. It was a whole big thing for about three days. I'll see if I can track them down. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This was not it, but if you want a scalding from-the-left rebuke of Fightback at York: [1] Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I found it, I'll leave it to others to decide if an explicitly M-L blog is a reliable source for socialist infighting but I will point out that, from over here at the left edge of the political compass: yes it is. Fightback vs "sectarians" round 100,000,000,000,000,000 Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Blogspot entries are not considered WP:RS unfortunately. Your WSWS articles appears to be a deadlink, and does not appear to have been archived anywhere to show it was an RS itself. Isingness (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's odd. The WSWS link worked for me this morning. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed it for you; still not an RS it appears. Isingness (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, probably not. Mostly it's a decent backgrounder for situating Fightback within the circles of the Canadian left. They're divisive, and it provides some background for the blog. I totally get if you don't want to use the blog source; I can tell you that it is being treated as reliable information within leftist circles but that's a different standard from Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. If a better source exists we should try to find it. I'm not saying it isn't accurate, but - as you've stated yourself - the citation limitations here are rather restrictive. Isingness (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to help find more sources too. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hi There! There has been some debate here regarding the point of view on this page, particularly the section about the Administration's handling of the strike. Adding a section about criticism surrounding the Union would provide an alternate point of view that could aid in the apparent one-sidedness of the article as seen in WP:POV. Several sources can be found expressing that point of view, such as the following; https://www.macleans.ca/education/york-university-strike-school-accuses-union-of-bullying/ https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/chris-selley-after-four-york-university-strikes-in-18-years-its-buyer-beware-for-students https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/cupe-3903-in-its-own-ivory-tower/article1147886/ I hope this is able to help the debating users find information on how to possibly proceed with their writing. --Kae14 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any specific proposed edits? Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Wente is a notorious and divisive opinion columnist, so there's some POV issues with her reportage. I can't speak to the other two articles; all three outlets would be considered reliable sources without a doubt - but opinions sourced to reliable sources remain opinions, not statements of fact and they should be handled carefully. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Finally, as a York student who, presumably, was affected by the strike you might want to disclose this explicitly as a possible conflict of interest; it's a minor thing and if you were assigned this page as a student assignment an understandable one, of course, but in situations like this it's a good idea to be forthcoming with those sorts of details and to propose edits with additional care. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't provide a balance of criticisms for the sake of it, it is a summary of how an event or topic has been covered in reliable sources. So, if one or two sources criticize something in one way, but fifty criticize it in another, the first two articles don't receive balanced inclusion; they receive proportional inclusion. The Selley piece is also a pundit piece for the Post, so I'd be wary of including it as an opinion piece (though the Globe piece is clearly an opinion piece too, so not RS). However, the MacLeans piece is pretty balanced--it accuses both sides of bullying. Any inclusion of the source needs to include both points of view represented by the piece of course. Isingness (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

New Section

I'm a student at York university. I was going through the article it seems good and detailed; however, what I suggest is that you can add a section about the students, in terms of how the strike affected students especially the graduating class of 2018. --Stsi77 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stsi77. Previously our info-box contained several student groups. However due to disagreements and debates about sources on this talkpage; it was removed. Student involvement was an aspect to the strike, so it is unfortunate that such information was removed, though I can understand the reason being due to lack of sufficient sources. I have found an additional source in print and online that briefly discusses student groups and actions during the strike, hopefully an additional could satisfy wp:sigcov. It's Maclean's, the very same source that was used for the inclusion of information on Students For CUPE 3903 on the page, so maybe it can be used to include other student groups as well. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding creating a section for student actions and how the strike affected students overall, I think that would be a great idea as well. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Anything that can be supported by legitimate sources and is written neutrally is welcome of course. The issue becomes whether or not such sources exist beyond student newspapers (which can be biased in these cases) and opinion columns. What would be best are things like statistical changes in graduation rates, but they would have to exist in RS. That some students did not like the strike, and some supported it, is somewhat incidental to the notability of the event (one would assume a strike doesn't make anybody happy). But if we are missing information from great in-depth sources, there's no reason it shouldn't be added. Isingness (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)