Talk:Canadian Heritage Alliance

[Untitled]

Deleted due to defamatory statements in respect of living individuals.

Never mind that much of the information was sourced? It wasn't a great article, but it was workable and could have been easily fixed. All that was needed was the time to do so. AnnieHall 03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For details of the severe BLP problems still present in this article, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 April 8#Canadian Heritage Alliance (closed), especially the comments by Guy.

BTW, the http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/04/10/21/2221245.shtml link is dead, because recomnetwork.org is defunct.

Those of us who like to see Wikipedia exposing the Racist Right for what they are should keep in mind that making false/unsubstantiated claims about them will do no-one any good. Cheers, CWC 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for what was removed?

It's worth asking the question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other possible sources

Here's a couple of sources that could be useful. Cheers, CWC 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• B'nai Brith Canada - 2003 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, Part 5

About the CHA's support of Michael Neumann

• B'nai Brith Canada - 2006 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, Part C

Mentions case against "Melissa Guille, allegedly at the forefront of a group called the Canadian Heritage Alliance"

Another one:

• CHA on New Orleans Protocol

"Canadian Heritage Alliance pledges loyalty to the New Orleans Protocol"

Also, I discovered a document titled The Jewish "Final Solution" for Whites on the CHA website. Perhaps we should mention it in the article? (We'd have to be careful to avoid WP:OR, of course.) CWC 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be very wary of including anything which is not discussed in the mianstream press. The group's website stinks, and B'nai Brityh hate it and the group with a passion, the only way we're going to get anywhere close to an unbiased view is to stick to what independent commentators say about the grou and about the opposition to it. This is not a large group, and the coverage is minimal, we need to be very careful not to slide back into a blatant hatchet job, however vile we may find their views. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging Melissa Guille here

Guy has suggested merging our article about Melissa Guille into this one. Here's a place to discuss whether to make this merger.

• Support merge because Melissa Guille has no WP:NOTABILITY outside the CHA. CWC 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Merge. Significant figure in the Canadian far right and one of the few female leaders, not only in Canada, but in North America. AnnieHall 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Merge Melissa Guille is not notable enough to have an article about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.241.168 (talk • contribs)

• Don't Merge She's a significant figure in her own right. See the London Free Press headline "Melissa Guille, one of few female white supremacy organizers". Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If we do this merge, Melissa Guille would become a Redirect to this article.
  Question: Has she had any notable media coverage that was not mainly about the CHA?
  CWC 09:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Merge Guill'es associations go outside her group. She is active in her own right. Toodles

• Don't Merge Guille is a notable Canadian neo-nazi who is notable enough to have her own page! eternalsleeper

• Support Merge There is not need to have a separate page for Melissa Guille Dogmatic 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I have just put the proposed merger tags on both pages. This was housekeeping; I have no opinion on the merge. Kla'quot 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't merge I agree that She is a significant figure in her own right 70.51.66.20 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)