This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This might not be a start-quality article anymore. Also, it probably should be added to the appropriate Indigenous peoples in Canada portals or projects. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 ( talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Alaney2k, I am going to restore the "Consequences" section, because otherwise the article comes across very strongly as focusing on the reasons for and extent of opposition while dismissing the effects of the blockade upon non-reservation people. (For example, you completely buried the layoffs.) In parallel, I am also going to back-divide the supporting protests between rail protests and all other protests. Generally speaking, "Rail disruptions" really should be about what is done to rail service specifically; and thus would not include non rail-related protests or layoffs.
I did not check editing history in sufficient detail to know who exactly overhauled the "Opponents and proponents" section. That overhaul is not NPOV at all, not with only one voice being cited as being in favour of the pipeline and two dense paragraphs against. I will later restore something closer to what I wrote earlier (one paragraph pro, one paragraph anti, one paragraph focusing on the sovereignty question). Incidentally, no matter what the conflict, it is customary in neutral writing to list the pro side first, then the anti. Doing so does not indicate that either side has more weight or value. In contrast, opposing custom automatically shifts a writing bias to the opposing side.
For now, I am not going to touch the way you expanded and changed the "Negotiations" section, although that kind of quoting and detail really does belong in a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. I am also leaving alone the way you moved the partial ending of the blockade, although I personally do think that it belongs under "Negotiations" because it is part of resolution, if only as a gesture of good faith. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 ( talk) 10:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although there is a lot of development in regards to protests surrounding the Coastal GasLink Pipeline (ie: arrests, rail blockades, etc), I suggest that we move the majority of these details to a separate article as this article main focus should be more on the Coastal GasLink Pipeline project itself (i.e. history, planning, construction, etc) rather than mainly on the consequential protests across Canada. Therefore, I propose that section Protests be split into a separate page called Protests of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline or something similar. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. RehmanK786 ( talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have created Draft:Coastal GasLink Pipeline and Draft:2020 Canadian pipeline protests for editors to examine. Alaney2k ( talk) 20:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: I have started the Draft:Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline protests article. Of course, everyone welcome to edit it. Lots to add! Alaney2k ( talk) 13:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe it is notable what Trudeau had to say, and if not in the lede, then where would it go? Oppen to suggestions, but he is neither a proponent nor an opponent, right? Scheer is an asshole, but he is still head of the PC, no? Someone else added the sentence about Miller, which does seem like spin, and, for instance, who is Miller exactly? Lacks context. In short, I think the Trudeau and Scheer quotes should remain, though I am not against them being moved elsewhere or summarized. It is, after all, a national issue at this point, and there should be mention of the national government's response, especially given the lengthy quotes from other people Elinruby ( talk) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has almost nothing to do with a pipeline, and everything to do with politics and obstruction. At best, it's mis-titled. Where can we find some real information?
200.68.170.12 ( talk) 03:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC) baden k.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This might not be a start-quality article anymore. Also, it probably should be added to the appropriate Indigenous peoples in Canada portals or projects. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 ( talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Alaney2k, I am going to restore the "Consequences" section, because otherwise the article comes across very strongly as focusing on the reasons for and extent of opposition while dismissing the effects of the blockade upon non-reservation people. (For example, you completely buried the layoffs.) In parallel, I am also going to back-divide the supporting protests between rail protests and all other protests. Generally speaking, "Rail disruptions" really should be about what is done to rail service specifically; and thus would not include non rail-related protests or layoffs.
I did not check editing history in sufficient detail to know who exactly overhauled the "Opponents and proponents" section. That overhaul is not NPOV at all, not with only one voice being cited as being in favour of the pipeline and two dense paragraphs against. I will later restore something closer to what I wrote earlier (one paragraph pro, one paragraph anti, one paragraph focusing on the sovereignty question). Incidentally, no matter what the conflict, it is customary in neutral writing to list the pro side first, then the anti. Doing so does not indicate that either side has more weight or value. In contrast, opposing custom automatically shifts a writing bias to the opposing side.
For now, I am not going to touch the way you expanded and changed the "Negotiations" section, although that kind of quoting and detail really does belong in a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. I am also leaving alone the way you moved the partial ending of the blockade, although I personally do think that it belongs under "Negotiations" because it is part of resolution, if only as a gesture of good faith. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 ( talk) 10:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although there is a lot of development in regards to protests surrounding the Coastal GasLink Pipeline (ie: arrests, rail blockades, etc), I suggest that we move the majority of these details to a separate article as this article main focus should be more on the Coastal GasLink Pipeline project itself (i.e. history, planning, construction, etc) rather than mainly on the consequential protests across Canada. Therefore, I propose that section Protests be split into a separate page called Protests of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline or something similar. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. RehmanK786 ( talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have created Draft:Coastal GasLink Pipeline and Draft:2020 Canadian pipeline protests for editors to examine. Alaney2k ( talk) 20:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: I have started the Draft:Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline protests article. Of course, everyone welcome to edit it. Lots to add! Alaney2k ( talk) 13:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe it is notable what Trudeau had to say, and if not in the lede, then where would it go? Oppen to suggestions, but he is neither a proponent nor an opponent, right? Scheer is an asshole, but he is still head of the PC, no? Someone else added the sentence about Miller, which does seem like spin, and, for instance, who is Miller exactly? Lacks context. In short, I think the Trudeau and Scheer quotes should remain, though I am not against them being moved elsewhere or summarized. It is, after all, a national issue at this point, and there should be mention of the national government's response, especially given the lengthy quotes from other people Elinruby ( talk) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has almost nothing to do with a pipeline, and everything to do with politics and obstruction. At best, it's mis-titled. Where can we find some real information?
200.68.170.12 ( talk) 03:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC) baden k.