Talk:Anti-Poverty Committee
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It appears that this group is getting more attention from the media, after several members have trashed the offices of VANOC. Expansion of this article would be greatly appreciated. --Jw21 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
References 4 and 5 are only available to subscribers and 6 and 7 require purchase of the article to view. Destrath 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them invalid; they're freely available at the library. bobanny 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Article had overwhelmingly negative bias using police quotes regarding a demonstration
[edit]This article contains no statements directly made by the APC, makes generalizations about their views and techniques, and placed prominent police quotes LIBELLING the entire organization as criminals. If anyone puts that police quote back in I will continually remove it and we can have a little flame war here.
There is a lot of money going into the 2010 olypics and a lot of people ARE factually being misplaced. Without references on me I cannot add this data can I?
so how come a spurious comment by a police officer representing these very important and influential demonstrators is allowed to slur and degrade their image based on a single man's stated opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.29.108 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting sourced material is not considered productive; a far better use of your time would be to provide sourced, neutral text about the APC. If you choose to edit war, that will only end up with your IP being blocked for disruption. --Ckatzchatspy 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So I have deleted the offending phrase by the officer which was a personal comment, not a verifiable fact. The link is left undamaged. The spurious end comment was unrelated to the actual APC and would be better moved to a page about media collusion in activism. The police officer's comment is coloring the perception of the APC as "criminal" and "illegal". These determinations can only be made by a Justice, not a police office. At least in Canada.
- Chris Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.29.108 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The phrase from the officer is perfectly valid, so it will probably be restored at some point in the near future. However, I'll try to find other material to present both sides of the issue. I've already found a few articles that offer opinions about the incident, and other activities carried out by the group. Members seem to feel they are justified in what they are doing, but there is also a strong opposition to their tactics. This needs to be presented as well in order to have a balanced article. --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have not seen any other pages regarding activists that has personal unproveable comments by a police officer attached to the article. I read a LOT of wikipedia articles on activism. This is why I am so peeved about this comment. A decision by a justice is a verifiable proven accusation with supporting case references and reviewed evidence. A comment by a police officer is an unproven accusation by a member of the public. Over the years many police officers have made statements about accused persons who later turn out to innocent through the court process. An Olympics event causes cointelpro-like activities to be initiated against dissent. If the wikipedia is used to slander dissenters its value is diminished. Balanced viewpoints from different sides of an issue are good, but I believe you are incorrect in saying that the police officer's statement is valid. It is opinion, not fact. Slanderous opinion. The wikipedia is about factual material is it not? If it is used for mockingbird/cointelpro-like activities such as unsubstantiated slander against society's dissidents, then it is no more valuable than any other mouthpiece for the major media conglomerates. (Chris)
- The phrase from the officer is perfectly valid, so it will probably be restored at some point in the near future. However, I'll try to find other material to present both sides of the issue. I've already found a few articles that offer opinions about the incident, and other activities carried out by the group. Members seem to feel they are justified in what they are doing, but there is also a strong opposition to their tactics. This needs to be presented as well in order to have a balanced article. --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Poverty Committee. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120208041040/http://www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20070312_215127_1024 to http://www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20070312_215127_1024
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
- 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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)