Talk:Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edits by Benkenobi18

Benkenobi18, you don't get to make this article into a public relations press release for the organization. That is not Wikipedia's role. Describing the organization's notable activities is encyclopedic. Listing the organization's staff members (none of whom have encyclopedia articles except Ms. Gray) is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced material (7! sources), intended to be used to improve the article and to expand it isn't part of what Wikipedia is about either. Why did you do this? There was no reason to remove the sources and revert me. If you were concerned about certain sections f the edits, you could simply have edited the article, not just revert me. As for labeling my prior edit as advertising, I'll let other wikipedians determine this. You reverted a good faith edit without cause, and removed pertinent information, including that of the name of the other co-founder of the organization, and their connection to Gregg Cunningham. Why? Why is pertinent information (and just that information considered advertising? Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've misused sources to say things that they don't say[1][2], added unsourced[3][4] and non-notable content[5](with links to the wrong targets) and removed sourced content using false[6] and disingenuous[7] reasoning. This is unacceptable. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give you some advice at User_talk:Benkenobi18#Stephanie_Gray. You didn't take it. I'll try again. When making edits to an article within scope of discretionary sanctions, consider what those edits would look like when presented as evidence at an arbitration enforcement request. If they could be construed as the edits of someone violating WP:NOTADVOCATE or other policies, don't make the edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have taken this into account, and I stand by my edits as both an accurate and neutral presentation of the subject matter at hand. I suggest that you take a look at my original edit, which stripped the page down to the factual evidence associated with the organization. I am not sure how readding the name of the co-founder, their connection with CBR in the United States and removing incorrect (and erroneous) information left in the article counts as 'ad copy'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests

I want to be clear that I don't think that section should be seen to reflect negatively on the organization - I think it points out an important free speech issue and the case has apparently ensured that the right of free speech is recognized in Canadian airports. The court was very clear that their speech was protected by the CCRF. If there's a way to better word that, feel free to make edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"extremist" organization?

It is inappropriate to label this organization as "extremist" in the article, since it gives the article a pro-choice bias. The term "extremist" is typically means a person who uses violence to get their way, which is not what this organzation does. Graphic imagery is nothing new in the pro-life movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.119.16 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit removed that label in favour of language that simply describes the actions of the organization. That's clearly not WP:NPOV to label the actions "extremist," for the reasons you cite and others. Balleyne (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. 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/20140310063748/http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2671 to http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2671

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) 01:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]