Talk:Anti-Poverty Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] CTV News Reference

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)

[edit] Article had overwhelmingly negative bias using police quotes regarding a demonstration

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 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)