Talk:Neuville Airport/Archive 1

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

Please stop edit warring on this page.

Neuville is a small village of 3000 so if there was a 2000 names petition and a demonstration with 600 persons, I think we can say the opposition is trong and not just a few like the other contributor would like to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstrob (talkcontribs) 22:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to stay neutral on the controversy surrounding the construction and I have reverted attempts by other editors to remove the whole opposition section. However, some of your edits are not improving the article either. To go through them point by point:
  1. You removed the link to the official site from the infobox, external links section and as a reference. You can't do that. It is standard to have that link to the official site when one exists.
  2. Replaced a dead link with one to a picture but there is nothing there to indicate where that was taken. I searched the site and replaced it with an article.
  3. You changed few to strong but neither one is neutral or referenced. It should just indicate that there is opposition but without a reference it should not say either way.
  4. "March 31, 2012 when about 600" was changed to "march 31 2012 where about 600". In English the months of the year are always capitalised and the word "when" works better in this context.
  5. The [] were removed from several references leaving bare url links. They should not be removed.
  6. You replaced a dead link ( about the protest with one that works ( That improves the article.
  7. You changed "was created" to "is created" but that does not work in English.
  8. The references to the blog and the Facebook page were changed to inline links. Inline links are normally removed and replaced as references.
  9. You changed "runway, a few hundred feet away as" to "runway, at a few hundred feet only as". That isn't good English. The first is correct.
  10. Changed two residents to a few that are suing but the reference only shows two.
  11. You added "Transport Canada is pretending" but the reference you used does not say that.
  12. You changed New Democratic Party of Canada to New Democratic Party. However, that is just a disambiguation page listing New Democratic Parties around the world.
  13. You changed gained to gain but gained is the correct word.
  14. "2,000 Canadian" became "2000 canadian" but the standard on Wikipedia it to have the , in numbers over a thousand and Canadian is always capitalised.
  15. References always come before external links.
  16. The default sort template was removed for no reason.
I have merged in some of the material you added in an effort to keep the article neutral. I would also point out that it takes at least two people to edit war, not just the people reverting you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, I totally agree with your last version. I think it is now neutral and well written. I just removed one of the link about the 600 person demonstration that was coming out 2 times in the same sentence now. And I corrected a small typo Nuvillois => Neuvillois. Thank you very much for your work. And I'm sorry for all my mistakes.--Jstrob (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad it all worked out. Just need to keep an eye out for people trying to remove the material. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Header added by user Bouchecl

Hi. I think the header added by user Bouchecl is inapropriate. I think it is very important to note that this airport is very new and small but it is known across all Quebec because of the controversies it has created. So the main point talking about it here is the controversies. User Bouchecl was recruited by a pro-aviation writer to try to rewrite the neuville airport article in french but his draft is really not neutral.

For example if we talk about Al Capone we will not start a lenghty story about what he eats or what he does as a hobby, we talk about what he is known for: his criminal activities. If we talk about asbestos we will mainly talk about the diseases it causes, If we talk about Neuville airport it's kind of the same thing, we will talk about the controversies, for what it is known for. For sure some pro-aviation militants will not like it but that's the reality.--Jstrob (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor Jstrob is in WP:COI (see here for instance) and has engaged in edit warring in the French version of this article, repeatedly reverting good faith edits by other editors without due respect to the WP:3RR. So much so that the French version of this article is now in full protection mode, at least until tomorrow.
As for the substantive issues raised by the {{multiple issues}} banner, I will point out that on 16 sources, only six would qualify under WP:RS. Here's the full breakdown.
  • Government publication (1)
  • News medias (5, 11, 12, 13, 15)
  • Youtube (6, 10)
  • Opponents' web site (2, 7, 14)
  • Facebook (8)
  • Promoters' web site (3, 4)
  • Unrelated association (9)
  • News release from an opposition Member of Parliament (16)
As it currently stands, the article only documents opposition to the airport and is far from being neutral. Editors and readers should be aware of this. Bouchecl (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
User Bouchecl is also in conflict of interest and has repeatewdly attacked me personnaly(see here) (a new user WP:DNB) for mistakes I did at the beginning and and for which apologies. Instead on relying purely on argument to make his point he is still here trying to attack me personally. If we talk mainly about the controversy as I explained above it is because the subject is known and talked about in the medias as a controversy vector. Like asbestos, like al Capone. For sure pro-aviation lobbyists want to remove all controveries about airports. But Wikipedia has to show the truth about all those controversies. About my sources I think they all qualify as the perfect source for every information they bring. and most of all those sources are essential to understand the controversy we are talking about. I would also point out I'm not the only writer on that article as you seem to think.--Jstrob (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's up to the readers and editors to decide what's appropriate or not using the five pillars and the numerous policies put in place by the community over the years. As for WP:DNB, an editor who has contributed to enwiki for ten months doesn't exactly qualify as a newbie and should be perfectly aware that POV-pushing and conflict of interests are frowned upon here. By the way, the fact that you know about policies such as WP:DNB defeats your newbie argument... Bouchecl (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's also up to the reader to determine if someone is of bad faith or counterproductive. You know I just wrote a few words last year and that I just started wrtiting again a few days ago. I know about DNB because I just read about it. I didn't know how the whole dynamic of wikipedia works in regards to people like VienneauLuc (your friend it seems) who started to repeatedly revert my writings without any discussion. Now I know how to do it. I only have around 15 hours of activity and you know it. Please stop your personnal attacks now and get out your arguements about how we should present the subject.--Jstrob (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The truth is that you will not find any credible source to get information about this airport except about the controversy it created. Every newspaper talking about this airport talk about the controversy. Why? because the promoters of the airports decided to build this airport without the consent of the people, without the consent of the mayor and without the consent of the province. They decided to create this controversy and now they have to live with it. If they are your friends, just tell them! Why should the wikipedia article about Neuville airport be different from all the literature written about it? Please answer this without any personnal attack if you can.--Jstrob (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you're not familiar with the article's history feature. You should read the history of this article where all the gory details are duly recorded. You've edited this pages in April 2012, where you engaged sock puppets. Back then, you were warned about COI. In September, you've edited again and reverted material not to your liking. In this present editing stint, you removed the Airport website from the infobox, removed citation templates, engaged in a series of reverts with CambridgeBayWeather and warned by TBrandley to bring your issues to this Talk page. You reverted him too. I rest my case. Bouchecl (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Again a lot of effort on personnal attacks from Bouchecl and not a single logical argument! When will he receive warning from a moderator for those personnal attacks? If you look carefully at the history you will see the first contribution I did when almost nothing was written, was just adding info and correcting mistakes. I was reverted the first then by some pro-aviation contributor. Here too. And the first protection was for MY version that was judged the best by the moderator. If yor pursue your personnal attacks you are just getting your case worst and worst.--Jstrob (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Past edits on a page doesn't constitute a personal attack and is perfectly in line with the lead sentence of the recommandation: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bouchecl (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to ME that you are talking more about ME and what I did in the past than about the present content of the article and what could be changed to make it better and neutral.--Jstrob (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you both please stop going on at each other and address the article. First of all I have no French and have to rely on Google Translate to know what the sources say. It also means that I can't properly search for sources either way. I edit a lot of airport articles but I try to remain neutral about each one. Without the controversy section this article would be no more than hundreds of other Canadian airports.

Starting with the added tags. It would have been helpful if, when adding the tags, some explanation had been provided here.

  1. "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject." This may be true but was there similar demonstrations in support of the airport. How much support of the community does the airport enjoy?
  2. "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." There is very little in the way of sources used that are associated with the airport so I'm not sure how it applies.
  3. "This article needs additional citations for verification." True but as I pointed out I have trouble finding them.
  4. "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted." Yes they are formatted in a manner that is acceptable according to Help:Footnotes.

Above there is a list of the type of sources used and the claim that 10 of them are not acceptable. Which 10 are not acceptable? I would agree that usually Facebook is not an acceptable source but in this case it's only being used to show that the group exists. Though at the same time anybody can start a Facebook group so it is not an indication of major support. Are there sources that show support in the community for the airport? I looked at the official site (in Google Translate) and they seem derogatory about the opponents but that may be because of the poor translation.

I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Québec/Neuville Airport asking for other editors to chime in. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. There was not a single demonstration pro-airport by any neuville citizens. There is almost no suppport from the population for the airport. The only support pro-airport I can think in the whole towm of 3700 people is the one who sold his land for 350 000$ (he paid 60 000$) to the airport promoters. Note that the promoters are not people from Neuville, they came from places far away.
  2. the sources used are mostly newspaper with an editorial comitee. Nothing irregular.
  3. I added a few more.
  4. I agree they are acceptable.
I propose to remove the header. Thanks--Jstrob (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
bouchecl has manage to have me block by his friends on the french wikipedia. They were pushing their POV wihout listening to me I asked for another mediator and they answered me by blocking me. the one who blocked me, Starus is a pro-aviation as he wrote on his page. If that's not POV pushing what is it? he should loose his power to block people.--Jstrob (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)