Talk:2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Issues[edit]

There are currently multiple issues with this page. Some - the errors regarding constitutional structures - I've tried to fix. Others, however, rest in the "Polemics of proroguing Parliament" and "Canada Democracy 2.0" sections; these are poorly sourced, badly written, and generally unencyclopaedic. I think the former should be deleted all-together, while the latter should go only if an overhaul can't make it more understandable and balanced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: proconlist tag: I think it is the nature of the polemics being captured that shows objectively what is being thrown to the public. Having said that, I think more assiduous work is needed to link and reference and timeline the progression of the polemical positions based on the available record. I do not think "neutrality" for the sake of neutrality is the question, for polemics by nature is "a taking of sides". The interest is in recording for the sake of recording in an encyclopedic style as much as possible and allow what little bit of organization takes place by timeline or by point and counter-point. What do you think? 76.66.26.99 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The neutrality tag has nothing to do with the polemics section. That part of the article seems irrelevant to this page, belonging more, if anywhere at all, at Legislative session or Parliament. The section is also almost totally uncited. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged the 'demoocracy 2.0' section (which needs a far better title, but that's really a minor issue) for the numerous problems it has. The section, if we can find references, certainly deserves to be there, at the very least perhaps as a subsection of Reaction and aftermath. The polemics section really shouldn't be there at all. Any of the arguments that have been brought up should be included, including quotes, in appropriate sections further up. As it stands, the section merely existed to refute arguments put forward in favour of prorogation. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To help solve some of the problems discussed above, and for several other reasons, I have created a much needed new Wikipedia page entitled, Prorogation in Canada. I welcome all suggestions, improvements and input from all. Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Chris White started the "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament" Facebook group, but he was not responsible for the anti prorogation rallies. Shilo Davis started a group "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament-Rally for the Cause" at the same time as Chris and collaborated with him on publicizing the rallies. Shilo Davis was the creator and coordinator of the country wide rallies on January 23rd 2010. There are numerous reliable sources documenting this, and Chris White himself explains this in multiple interviews-please make sure you credit her hard work if you're going to take the time to credit Chris. http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2010/01/22/We-are-not-an-apathetic-people-Facebook-group-founder/ http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2470260 http://thesil.ca/blog/news/gore-park-rally-snubs-harper/ http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/746068--grassroots-fury-greets-shuttered-parliament http://thevarsity.ca/articles/24673 http://chrischarlton.ndp.ca/node/711 http://www.thespec.com/article/698122 http://www.trentarthur.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1739:hundreds-in-peterborough-march-against-dictatorial-prorogation&catid=16&Itemid=38 http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2257745 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/03/02/13088261-qmi.html http://www.xtra.ca/blog/ottawa/post/2010/03/02/Canada-Participates-lauches.aspx I have no idea how to edit the page or I would do it myself-any help is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.60.181 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dates are important for context[edit]

According to this Wikipedia article timelines are important. Chronology is important because it clarifies the context in which events occur. Among those events are statements made by persons of importance, and also content from sources and news articles. That is why it is often important to place content in a chronological order. Exceptions to this guideline occur only when issues like readability arise. Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm*[edit]

File:Protest in Beijing against prorogation of Canadian parliament.jpg - NorthernThunder (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the facepalm? ~AH1(TCU) 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Title Rename[edit]

The title of this article contains two negatives, anti and protests. To someone who may not acquainted with the topic it sounds like people are protesting prorogation NOT happening, rather than protesting it happening.

I would suggest that the article be renamed 2010 Canada prorogation protests. It's less word and less confusing.

Dcraig9 (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....interesting study of grammar here.....I would be cautious about changing the title because "anti-prorogation" is like an adjective which describes the noun "protests." If "prorogation" were the adjective describing the noun "protests" then the reader might think that the protesters are using prorogation to do their protests. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a POV fork from the "political dispute" article?[edit]

The badly- named "political dispute" article (which for some reason it was argued into the hole shouldn't be called the "prorogation dispute" article is about the same series of events; except what's been done is that the public viewpoint (expressed here) and the political posturing/gaming are in two separate articles; that's POV forking. Politicians don't operate in vacuums, though they'd like to (one in particular....). "The public has no right in the politics of the nation" is what this split effectively means; quarantining public opposition to questionable political behaviour - on what wiki-grounds exactly?? Or is this just (as i believe it to be) more evidence of "information management" by "media consultants" messing around in Wikipedia, as I believe it to be....Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which other article are you referring to? This page was created solely to cover the protests related to the prorogation issue in Canada, both of which have received media coverage. Please improve the NPOV of the article if you think it's POV, and merge any articles if needed. ~AH1 (discuss!) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)