Talk:2012 Quebec student protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV[edit]

The Gazette is used as a source several times to justify politically charged edits as NPOV. Several times a week, the Gazette publishes an editor's opinion on the second page and an official "Gazette's View" in the editorials which explicitly states the paper's non-support of student protests. Moreover, the editors with the greatest access to this page are those from an English background and therefore also more likely to be from western Canada or members of the government and english media. As such, it is wishful thinking to believe that the selective reporting and synthesis featured in this article constitute NPOV. Would somebody please go through and indicate which claims are made by proponents and opponents of the strike. Finally (as far as I can tell) the article begins, runs and ends citing arguments against and opposition to the protests, with very little text dedicated to the protests themselves; this "drowning out" of the other (and demographically significant) viewpoints constitutes blatant abuse of what can reasonably be called NPOV.132.216.68.110 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article is full of problems re NPOV. Even starting with the Events section, a fairly important statement regarding the wounded student is made without any source or reference to back it up. Even worse, later it is said that at the Victo riot "vandals started throwing projectiles at the crowd" which is absolutely false: according the the videos I was able to see of the event, police through plastic bullets, flash grenades and tear gas canisters in the crowd, and the crowd have thrown things at the police, but "vandals have *not* thrown things in the crowd, unless you consider police to be vandals. At the very least, "vandals" is a weasel word there.
I wish we could have proper third party sources for a lot of the claims done in this article, or just have those claims removed. This is a sensitive issue and making such claim without proper sources seems like a very bad idea, in a time when things are still tense in Quebec. At this point, edit protection is actually hurting the neutrality of this article, as a lot of unsubstanciated claims and weasel words remain. -- TheAnarcat (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to follow WP:RS and not our own opinions. If theres a reliable source (even if you think its biased), its still a reliable source. There are plenty of pro student items in this and the French version of the article that come from sympathetic sources. as for this article needing to be neutered because things are still tense in Quebec, well I really don't think People will worry too much about a Wikipedia article.Mattnad (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Some of the "reliable sources" are actually opinion pieces, not journalistic articles. So there were "pro-student" items in this - I don't think the solution is to change those to "pro-fees-hike" items, that would make it non-neutral in the other way. I think the solution is to clearly mark those controversies as such. One of those would be, for example, the decision by the government to refer to the "strike" as a "boycott", which this article now seems to have decided is also an appropriate word here. Furthermore, some of the "sources" do not actually refer to the quoted material, for example "Only an estimated one-third of students agreed with the boycott, while the majority of students completed their courses" the source provided doesn't actually mention any statistics about the number of students that agreed with the boycott (when?!). I am really beginning to question whether the editors of this article actually want a neutral article here. --TheAnarcat (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
And anyone who tries to make the page reflect the sources are either bullied (by "concensus") that what is here is right, or labeled as a "sock puppet" of a user who tried to correct it. Just my opinion from observing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talkcontribs) 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've gone through and made some changes that I hope have addressed these issues. I don't see a problem with representing views opposed to the strikes and protests, while also presenting the concerns of striking students. -Darouet (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References Used Here[edit]

History of the Red Square[edit]

The article says "The square first appeared in October 2004 when the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté (Collective for a Quebec without Poverty) used it in a campaign against Bill 57." But Bill 57 was/is the Sustainable Forest Development Act which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with Poverty.

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=5&file=2010C3A.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.130.74 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

During every Legislative Assembly Session, the "Bill" numbers start over. In the 37th Legislature of Québec, Bill 57 was the Individual and Family Assistance Act tabled on June 11th 2004. The Article contains the correct information on this. The Bill 57 mentioned by the IP above was a 2009 Bill, introduced on June 12th 2009, 5 years later.

The PQ did not lower tuition ..[edit]

Whoever created this wikipedia page seems bias to PQ and nationalism. The PQ created an indexation that has in the long term raised tuition higher than the Liberals.

Can you please either make the article open to edit for everyone or just delete it? The sources you cite are also really bad sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.45.34 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can write out what you have in mind with a source, I'll see what I can do to incorporate. Mattnad (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct the PQ did not lower tuition, they indexed the increases to inflation. However the article has strayed away from the subject: The Student Protests.--Notwillywanka (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Sort of. The students protest were centered on tuition, so government response can be included. Mattnad (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 Quebec student protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Red Square[edit]

Hello everyone! Under the section of 'The Red Square Symbol' it should note that the connotation of the red square symbolizes being 'squarely in the red' - which emphasizes being in debt. Students visibly wore these squares (similar to activist buttons) to publicize their student debt. --Danacs (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)