Talk:2012 Quebec student protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Response to POV

New to 'contributing'. I am just translating the French entry to have it accessible in English, which seems fair, whether it be contentious or not. I will attempt to weed out any 'stance-taking' and reframe future and present translation ....such as 'arguments for' vs 'arguments against'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trad2012 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of stance-taking: "Tuition has been rising across the nation at a rate significantly above the rate of inflation for several decades. This stands in contrast with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which Canada ratified in 1976 and states "[h]igher education shall be made equally accessible to all...in particular by the progressive introduction of free education."

This first presents data which is fine, then judges it and claims that it is against this covenant that Canada has signed. However, equally accessible to all does not mean that tuition cannot rise, or rise faster than inflation. If tuition has been artificially held low, for example in Quebec since it has frozen tuition at times for 20 years, then it can rise very quickly, much faster than inflation. If student aid packages are put in place, as in the OECD data which has since been deleted, explaining that the OECD finds that tuition cost is not the primary, or even the important figure in accessibility to education, but it is the support system (housing, loans, bursaries, scholarships, grants) that is the primary factor in accessibility to education. Rather this statement is just made as a fact that the rising tuition violates this covenant, which is simplistic, disagrees with the references cited by this article, and was illustrated to be incorrect in the section I added which has since been deleted. So this statement above is something that needs to go ... -OR- someone needs to take these statements and put it together into some kind of student manifesto section so it's clear that these are their claims. That the cited references do not bear out the claims I think should be in this article as well. But certainly what can't stand is these kinds of statements that are making conclusions and are not supported. The OECD data is a bit complex but it does illustrate that the relationship of tuition and student aid vs. accessible education is a complex one with multiple approaches and solutions. Cherry picking one part to push a political point worries me tremendously because people will read it and accept it as a fact.

Since the article previously took the approach of making mis-statements then linking a citation that nobody checked, that had a completely different meaning, it's clear that you can get it wrong, but the presence of a citation beside your mistake (on purpose or not) is going to have it be accepted by the readers as truth. With the history of this in this article it needs to be watched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

POV

As it stands right now, I think that this article is at risk of violating WP:NPOV. Clearly this strike is a contentious issue both in and out of Quebec, but we should do our best to ensure it remains neutral. Of particular concern to me is the section "Economic Realities of Quebec Students", which seems to be written from a fairly pro-strike stance. Peter McLaren (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the article as a whole has major neutrality issues. I might do a major rewrite and expansion tomorrow time dependant. If this is a direct translation from the French version, somebody fluent will need to do a rewrite from their as well. Ben Reedijk

I've removed the tag, as the above concerns are very vague (it's POV because it's POV) and the current article appears to me satisfactory. If people feel this is an error, though, I'm fine with being reverted. Khazar2 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of the tag, obviously as does the person who put the tag in place and the previous user who commented. So you are on your own about it not being neutral. The article clearly took the side of the student protestors. Rather than insert the tag back in, I've gone ahead and fleshed out the article. I have cited the various issues at length below. Things like choosing only countries with lower tuition rates as comparison items, calling a molotov cocktail a "projectile" while referring to the police response as violent, and only presenting critical points of view on BIll 78, these are all single points of view and are weaselly in support of the students.

There really is a responsibility here to present the information as it has happened, and the data as it exists, without continually cherry picking on behalf of the students. I have not removed any of the salient points made in the original article, but where they have presented only the single and political point of view of the students, the other missing data has been filled in and the points of view of the other parties involved in this dispute have been noted. I think we have to insist that this article is not used as a political rallying item. That is, it's easy enough for people to come here, insert their own facts, go back to their own groups on Facebook or whatever and then point back at this article as an authoritative source for information to rally the troops. I suggest that this article probably should be locked. I have no idea how bad the French one is, but I would suspect from the English article the French one is pretty one sided.

If this beef is legitimate on behalf of the students, then it can certainly be convincing enough by telling the entire story without cherry picking facts to support one side, while demonizing the other with words like violent when these students brought fire bombs to the march. The purpose of this article is to explain what is going on, and to explain the positions of the various people involved in this political conflict. It is not here to take sides, to judge what is the most important issue, or to use hype or rhetoric to make the point of one of the parties.

Your argument makes sense; I simply removed it for technical reasons, since whoever had tagged the article for NPOV concerns a month ago had failed to provide any rationale here on the talk page. However, at a glance, it appears to me that the current version has significant problems with WP:SYNTH; the OECD source, which now makes up a third of the article, does not refer to the protests in any way. It would be better if possible to find comparative statistics on tuition that have been brought up in the specific context of the protests--surely, given the national coverage this has received, this won't be a problem. It would also be important to hear how protesters respond to these comparative arguments, if they're going to be given such length in the article. The article also fails in its current state to give any "voice" to protesters, which is odd, as they're the main subject here; having read several versions of it, I'm still unclear as to their actual demands. There doesn't appear to be even a single line about why the protesters object to the tuition increase, which surely is not satisfactory. I'm retagging this article as POV for now until it includes some form of the protester demands, and the WP:SYNTH has been better integrated or removed. If there's a consensus that I'm wrong to do so, of course, I'll be happy to be reverted. Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are doing. You let the article stand and said it was fair without checking the references. When I checked the references they were *mis-quoted* -or- *selectively mined* for supporting information. These elements formed the backing argument for the protests against the tuition increase. When this information was adjusted to correctly represent the data that was being cited, you now find that it is not relevant. First it was OK and you didn't notice that it was misrepresented, now that it is correct you find it's irrelevant and needs to go. Now you're asking where is the rationale for their protests? The rationale is the first set of mis-quoted articles and mis-represented data.... that became corrected... that you then deleted. The fact that they are mining specific bits of information selectively from these reports does help people understand the validity of their claims, and as such, I think it is highly relevant.

So I don't know how you expect to fix that, because you can list their claims and since they seem to be mis-representations of the cited articles, they can't really exist here without having the mis-representation addressed. That's up to you to figure out but I think we cannot just let one party make political claims that are not borne out by their references and just leave it here as facts. I won't be editing the article further, because as I said above, I expected that I'd be highly reverted which I was. I am not going to waste any further time on the article where corrections get wiped out by someone who is having trouble assessing the article from a POV standpoint. I would suggest that your inability to see that in the first place and that you said it was fine without checking the references out means you should probably not be editing the article further anyway and someone should call in a proper caretaker for this article.

Well, as stated above, I removed the POV tag because the discussion provided no rationale, was a month stale, and I saw no obvious issues on my first glance; you can see Template:POV for how the guidelines on this work. The burden is on the person who places the tag to identify issues with the article, and no one bothered to. I agree that the catches you made on closer reviews of sources were good ones, particularly the molotov cocktails. That said, I did find the large amounts of WP:SYNTH material added to the article to be problematic for POV reasons, and have offered clear suggestions on how to fix the issue: delete any claims based on sources that don't mention the protests directly, and instead draw only on statements from the protesters, statements from their critics, and coverage of the protests in reliable secondary sources. There's some left in the article still and your help would be welcome to weed it out.

As for your request for me not to edit the article further, this is silly and is not going to happen. Rest assured, there's a number of other editors taking a look at this one, and consensus will overrule any bad decisions I make personally. I'll be the first to admit that I make my share, but luckily Wikipedia does not rely solely on any one man. Khazar2 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that instructing the editorial body of Wikidepia as to how you believe an article should be written and keeping a POV tag on the article until you are satisfied is within the policies of Wikipedia. There is no rule against using supportive sources for comments made by participants in the event within the other references of the article--especially as the French version of this article is full of them, and there is no tag on that article due purely to that reason. The article as it stands mentions both sides of the issue, makes no supportive statements to either side, and has been cleaned for puffery. I look forward to a consensus on this article so that we can move past this silliness.Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a significant misunderstanding here. You seem to be saying I'm somehow filibustering this page, I've expressed my concerns and stated repeatedly that if the consensus is that I'm wrong, I'm fine with the POV and/or the SYNTH tags being removed. That discussion hasn't really taken place. So far we've heard from an IP who wants to leave the POV tag (below in "Neutrality") and you who wants it gone, plus Charlie Echo Tango's comments in edit summary only. Two editors (CET and MTLSkyline) have agreed with me on the SYNTH concerns. Based even on that, I've said I'm fine with the POV tag removed if no other editors object; you ignored that response to your comment and instead came up to this thread to blast me.

If you feel I'm in violation of Wikipedia policy, please let me know what specific policies you'd like me to review. Khazar2 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

French article

is at fr:Grève étudiante québécoise de 2012. There's masses of references and stuff. Peridon (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This is currently being translated directly from the French article. Last entry, April 14, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.59.65.133 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

IT APPEARS I AM TO ADD WHAT HAS BEEN TRANSLATED TO THE TALK PAGE TO ENSURE COPYRIGHT COMPLIANCE, AS PER INSTRUCTIONS. Despite previous actions, the student strike officially got under way on February 13, 2012, and, as of March 26, 2012, involved 193 000 students and 171 student associations. On March 22, 2012, in Montreal, a large national march (i.e. provincial) was one of the largest in its history. The demonstration organisers estimate that 200 000 people took part. (Translated from French Wikipedia article) [edit]CONTEXT University tuition fees in Quebec were frozen at $540 per year from 1968 to 1990. In 1994, tuition rose to $1668 per year, after which it was frozen until 2007, when it grew by $100 per year until 2012, making it $2168. Overall, tuition increased 300% between 1989 and 2012, not including other fees that are paid to universities (e.g. administration fees, student service fees, etc.). [1] (Translated from French Wikipedia article) On May 19, 1976, Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in which Article 13 stipulates: Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education; (Paragraph 2.c) [2] Only a third of OCDE countries have tuition rates higher than $1500 USD.[3] The Economic Realities of Quebec Students As students' and parents' ability to pay is taken into account, 40% of students do not receive any financial support from their parents, and two thirds no longer live with them: 80% work while studying full time. Half live with $12 200 per year (the poverty level being $16 320 per year). Statistics Canada determined that to go into debt to study has long term consequences and that the 200% tuition increase resulted in an increase of student debt from 49% to 57% between 1995 and 2005.[4] (Translation from French version of Wikipedia article) The hike in tuition fees and debt levels add to levels of anxiety of a possible 'national crisis'[5] , and of a speculative bubble that will only profit financial institutions that are in charge of managing government student loans. Certain American observers compare student debt to household debt situation before the bursting of the housing bubble. [6]" Trad2012 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Trad2012

how to turn a true statement into a false one

Here's the text from the cited article:

"Out of 32 developed countries, Canada had the second-highest rate of education spending in proportion to its GDP at more than 2.5%, trailing only the United States. A high proportion of that spending, 43.4 per cent in 2007, came from private sources, **primarily** tuition fees."

Here is the text from the wikipedia article:

" In Canada, 57% of the cost of education is covered by the public, the rest comes from private sources, **namely** tuition fees."

The meaning of the first is that the primary source (meaning the largest source) of the 43.4% of funding is from tuition fees. The author of the article has warped the meaning and by using "namely" in place of "primarily" has indicated that the entire 43.4% not-from-public funding is from tuition. Furthermore by dropping the context (Canada's public spending #2 out of 32 developed countries on education vs. GDP), the author further smacks of bias.

I am going to adjust the text to match the quotation correctly that is cited in the article.

I suspect this will be reverted by someone, in which case we truly have a POV problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

relative cost of tuition

Once again this article was cherry picking, comparing Quebec's tuition cost only to "similar" countries which were conveniently chosen to be a set of countries with lower tuition. It is arguable that Canada is more similar to Australia than it is to Italy or Spain, in terms of population size, culture, taxation and public spending, so it is not exactly fair to group Canada with Spain, Belgium, Italy and Austria and ignore the USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Again, it's the bias that is spread all through this article, which is not likely much of a surprise given the author. I have broken out the tuition discussion into its own section. It may not be surprising to find out then that the tuition situation is a bit more complicated than just grabbing a few countries who have smaller costs than Quebec and using that as an argument to say Canadian tuition is too high. The Nordic countries that bear a very high tax burden also have free tuition and furthermore give substantial amounts of student aid, where the formerly "similar" countries that were compared for lower tuition also have the lowest amount of student aid available. High tuition countries also, with the exception of Japan, provide very high rates of availability for student aid. This entire area bears more study and I think by presenting the data as expressed in the cited document provides the required neutral point of view and lets the reader understand where Canada lies within the bigger picture of developed countries. As one might guess, pretty close to the middle between the high-tax/free-education and the low-tax/expensive-education groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

judgments

This article decided it was to judge what was the most important thing about the new law being passed. I have deleted the phrase which renders judgment over the most important parts of the bill, and instead indicated that it was notable, which it is. Different people will have different points of view on what is most important in this bill. Furthermore, this article has taken the point of view that the restrictions on the protest rights of the students was important because it contravened fundamental rights. However, business leaders have come out in favor of this particular section, considering it important but for the opposite reason, because it will reduce the risk to business and economic damage in their opinion by restricting protest rights. Lastly students who want to go to school who have been intimidated by striking students disrupting classes may consider it important because it protects their right to have the education for which they have already paid and decided to pursue. Neither of these latter two points of view were addressed by this article. I will probably add them next once I go back and look up the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

general cleanup, more reactions

I added more reactions by law professors, students, business leaders as above. I've fixed grammar and spelling where I found errors. The article previously decided that molotov cocktails being thrown was not notable, while the police reaction to said cocktails was. I've added the information as it is of particular note in the cited article and I think it is fair to say that a molotov cocktail is not a "projectile" as the article would previously have had the reader believe.

I think this article's making some good progress, but it's still noticeably light in discussion of the protest events themselves; as an uninformed reader, I still have very little sense of what happened. The OECD report gets enormous weight here, but I don't see any statements from student leaders, etc. on their demands, or on the specific trigger for the first protest (if there was one). Is it possible for someone more knowledgeable to fill this in? Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article at the moment looks like it is trying to give all of this unnecessary background info about tuition costs. I removed the OECD section, since it seems to have little to do with the protests, which is the subject of the article after all.--MTLskyline (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The OECD section was put in because it was previously being selectively mined for information to support the student protests. I had a choice of deleting it or else expanding on it so that the information shown was correct. So I expanded on it. I don't know if deleting it is a good idea because it provides the background for the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have made the effort to make this article neutral in order to remove the tag, as I will next do. Please review my changes and let me know if there is more to be done--I'll happily come back and add more sources to one or the other side, and reduce any noted puffery. At this point the article is balanced to a better degree.Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your efforts have improved the article, but I'm not sure the two issues I raised above when placing it have been addressed yet. First, I'm concerned that the article has almost nothing about the rationale for the protests, or statements by the protesters. (To pick on a small example, I'm not sure why we should have a comment by the education minister about the protesters, but not by the protesters about the minister.) Given that the protests are ostensibly the focus of the article, surely at least a paragraph is needed here explaining their rationale. (Responses and critiques of that rationale, too, of course). But it seems unbalanced not to include a single statement or argument from them, but to include statements from law professors, business leaders, ministers, etc. This is my main issue.

Second, the "background" section seems to still be largely WP:SYNTH--facts assembled to make a case one way or another about the tuition in Canada. It'd be better if this was rewritten to provide these facts from coverage of the protests--surely this is a hot topic enough in Canada right now to spawn articles like "How High Is Tuition Really?" or "Tuition Pros and Cons", etc. But linking facts from unrelated news stories and primary sources (instead of letting the secondary sources do the linking) still falls under the header of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

Thanks for taking the time to improve this one. I'm restoring the tag for now, unless others feel I'm overreaching in my concerns. It's no comment on your contributions, though, just on what's still missing. Khazar2 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely leave the tag in. But I don't agree with you deleting the majority of my edits. What we had here was a one sided article, and you could not see the lack of neutrality. I added in the other sides, and you have gone and deleted it all. If you felt that the minister's comments about the students should be balanced by the reverse statement, then you can source a reverse statement and put it in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here; the only things I can remember deleting are things that fall under my SYNTH concern expressed above. Can you provide a diff from the article history? Khazar2 (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize someone else jumped in and deleted a bunch of stuff too. I spent hours correcting that stupid data and it's irritating to just have it wiped away by someone who doesn't understand why it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.246.210 (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

After Jeremy's comments and those of Charlie Echo Tango, I'm game for seeing the tag removed if the consensus here is that it should be. Is that okay with everyone? Khazar2 (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more--and re-reading the surprising anger up above even after I offered to remove the tag--I think I've become an unhelpful flashpoint for editors who need to be talking to each other as well as me. Since I haven't had much time to improve this article anyway, I'll simply bow out of this one. Feel free to do with the tags as you will, but please do remember to seek consensus with each other before pulling the POV tag again, per Template:POV. Cheers to all, Khazar2 (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded the "stands in contrast to" section and dropped a fact tag on the inflation comment. As sourced earlier in the article, tuition in Quebec has in fact risen at a much lower rate than inflation...this is true for other provinces as well, as far as I know, but I'd like to give the author or anyone with more knowledge an opportunity to source the claim. Once the claim is sourced or removed, I would be OK with removing the neutrality tag. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The historical section reads like a protest pamphlet! Krazytea(talk) 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a journalist covering the student strike, and I find there are several instances of significant bias against the student cause, which lack citations. The most egregious of these was the description of Bill 78. I changed the language there and added a citation to a Montreal Gazette article about the law. I don't have time to do more now, but there are some issues which need to be ironed out. In particular more sources and citations would help a lot...QuebecObserver (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

more creep on POV

I see the list of "events" is now a one sided list of great things the protestors did and acts of police brutality against them. How about the barricades being set on fire, that was front page news all across Canada, but no mention here. Also, the "300,000 - 400,000" in this march is laughable. The estimate is coming from an "independent journalist" Martin Lukacs who has a few pieces in The Guardian. He does not cite police or any other credible groups with expertise in estimating crowd size. The Globe and Mail said "Tens of thousands of people clogged Montreal’s city core in a festive, multi-headed march designed to make a mockery of a new provincial law that demands protest routes be approved in advance." -and- "Organizers said the crowd size rivalled the massive protests held the two previous months, on the 22nd of March and April." -and- previously the 22nd of March rally was said to draw 120,000 cited here: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/22/massive-student-strike-begins-with-port-blockade and 200,000 for April 22nd. -here- http://www.globalmontreal.com/video/earth+day+protests/video.html?v=2225886182 ...

So in this case we have an "independent journalist" who writes for a "grass roots newspaper" writing an uncited estimate of 400,000 people while the organizers themselves say that the march only rivaled the two previous large marches (which would indicate numbers slightly below the previous two marches up to the same number, otherwise it would "exceed"). And we have the Gazette using "tens of thousands".

Lastly this sentence is finished off with hyperbole comparing it to the size of the population of Montreal.

This is all POV material meant to exaggerate the size of this march and create emotional impact. It's not backed up by any accredited journalist, or police force, or independent organization with the knowledge set to estimate crowd control.

So will you stop, you all on your own (you know who you are) removing the POV tag on this article. There are enough people concerned with it that it needs to stay in and you overriding multiple people wanting this tag is making Wikipedia your personal fiefdom for your *own* point of view.

Furthermore this article goes on to imply that newspapers are calling this the biggest act of protest, where the Gazette in the reference is only quoting the protest organizers. At best, the protest organizers are biased to their own cause by definition. If we want to quote them then we should quote them and not use a weasel reference to insert material here as facts when it is a quote from one of the players. If a government official were to say nobody participated in the protest, and a newspaper were to quote them, we could not write here "Nobody participated in the protest" and stick a reference in there.

That's just plain old dishonest now.

This is multiple times that references have been distorted and misinterpreted, exaggerating the case of the protestors. I think it is deliberate and it's part of why this thing should have a POV tag on it, because it keeps happening and while our one resident tag remover seems to be blind to the issue, it doesn't mean it's not happening. He is happy to remove tags but not so happy to check references and see if the information presented actually represents what is in the article.

I put the POV tag back in because this is a recurring issue on this page, people are injecting political material voiced by one of the parties and citing it as fact. So the article continues sliding back away from a neutral point of view and becomes a platform for exaggerating the protests / magnifying their claims.

I removed the synth tag by accident and am putting it back in because of these same reasons.

I am going to act like others then and just delete the offending material. If someone wants to find an accurate estimate by an independent body of the march size and put it in, then do so. Independent journalists are about as good as using a blogger as a reference, and this is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I would like to submit that using The Guardian is about as good as using Sean Hannity in terms of accuracy but I will just levy the criticism at the particular "reporter" on this one. And please let's keep the emotional hyperbole out of the article, I know that some of you want to exaggerate every single thing about the protest, but if it has merits then the facts will do. Next thing we'll read is that it covered the size of Rhode Island.

I'm fine to leave the POV tag, however, criticizing local crowd estimate sources and then citing a TORONTO TABLOID newspaper is probably not the best idea. It's in the police's interest to either not comment on the crowd size or severely underestimate its size. This is true for any mass-gathering around the globe. If you are actually living in Toronto right now, then I can understand your frustration as you simply can not understand what's happening in Montreal. It doesn't take a "counting expert" to look at the aerial shots and determine that it's not just "tens of thousands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.80.18 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Green squares and red squares

There should be coverage on the symbols used, the red square by the protesters, the green squares by those students who are against the protesters, etc. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be much easier if you linked news articles discussing these symbols. Without those, we can't add a single thing to the article. Silverseren^C 04:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

24%

almost 400,000 people marched on downtown Montreal (roughly 24% of the population of that city)

I don't think that "roughly 24% of the population of that city" is good, since Montreal is part of a metropolitan region, and the students and protesters come in from the metro area and not just Montreal, so it should be compared to the metropolitan population, not the central city's population, especially with the ease of access to the central city from outlying municipalities (such as Laval) With the metro area being almost 4 million people, the separation between 24% and 10% is a big difference. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the reference for the section say 24%? If it does, then that is what we have to put, unless you can find a different news article that accounts for the metro area as well and states a different percentage. If you can't find such a reference, then we can't (and shouldn't) change it. Silverseren^C 04:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why "shouldn't"? If we just delete the parenthetical part, it would solve the issue. 70.24.251.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the only reason we'd be deleting it is your opinion on the numbers, when we're supposed to be representing the information as it is presented in the sources. Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that the metro area outside of the city proper had any effect on the protest unless there's a reliable source with information on it doing so. Silverseren^C 04:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an infodump. We don't have to add every single statistic to the article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but the percentage of the population that was attending is a rather important statistic. It both explains the size of the protests and how much students make up of the population. Silverseren^C 07:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren says that the only reason we would be deleting the percentages is that it would be opinion to do so. In fact, whoever added the parenthetical comment added opinion. The cited source does not refer to percentage of population. Though I believe that that source from The Guardian should not even be used. It is from their "Comment Is free" section and I doubt that the facts are checked. The reference from the Montreal Gazette used in the following sentence puts the crowd estimate at 250,000 by the organizers and 75,000 to 150,000 by others. --Ydgrunite (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

POV: Historical Context

The Historical Context section is clearly written from the POV of a Canadian outside Quebec (the "lowest tuition fees in Canada" argument, transfer payments, etc). It conveniently omits the fact the Quebecers pay far more taxes than in any other province and that tuition fees in Quebec are already above-average among OCDE members. This is not the place to dicuss ROC gripes with Quebec. Historical Context should explain the history of student movements/protests in Quebec, with probably the Quiet Revolution as a starting point. Anyone up to the task of editing this section?

In the meantime, I'm removing the last paragraph which is clearly non-neutral and unrelated to the topic at hand. Reference 14 is an editorial, not a factual source:

"Canada in 2007 ranked second out of 32 developed countries in spending on education in proportion to its GDP: 56.6% of the cost of education was covered by the public, the balance (43.4%) came from private sources, primarily tuition fees. [13] In comparison, Quebec students pay only 10% of tuition and benefit from transfer payments from other provinces whose students pay up to three times more tuition. [14]"

--@philtrem, June 9, 02:44

Quebec has high 'tax rates', but do not necessarily 'pay' the highest taxes. So citing theoretical tax rates can be misleading. The better measure is the actual paid taxes per capita or household. If you do a bit of research, Statistics Canada offers a lot of info. This publication [1] from 2007 is instructive.

On page 13 you see median income taxes paid by province. Quebec is well below average. So in a nutshell, Quebecers pay less taxes than most of the Canadian population.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include the broader issue of net Federal transfer payments from "Have provinces" to "Have not" provinces. There are tables later in this document (pages 35 to 40) that show Quebec getting much more Federal transfer payments than other large provinces like BC, Ontario, and Alberta.

So for all the taxes Quebecers think they pay, they pay much less than average, and they get a lot more back from other comparably sized provinces via the Federal government.

As for the Gazette article, it's not an editorial although it takes a position.Mattnad (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The POV is completely bizarre. Reads more like an editorial than an article. I don't even see the need to discuss federal transfer payments. It's not the reason this is happening - and even outside of Quebec, it's not a prominent issue. I'll simply delete the entire paragraph. Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment suggests that the Quebec student complaints and activities have no impact outside of Quebec. Reliable sources have directly connected the two. Now, you may not agree with those reliable sources, but that it's being written about says it's POV (albeit not flattering to the students). Here are a few samples of the perception from those less sympathetic to the student complaints. [2], [3], [4]. Will restore sourced material and add more citations. Mattnad (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My issue is the statement that "have become politically charged, with people in provinces". While the citations you've added certainly demonstrate that Quebec students are spoiled brats, they don't demonstrate the issue outside of Quebec is politically charged, or even any interest in people (rather than a couple of political pundits) in other provinces. I think this should be downplayed (but perhaps not eliminated) in the article. Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could be more precise that it's editorial voices written by commentators in other provinces.... That said, presumably they reflect an opinion broader than that one individual writing the piece. You are however correct that as written, it suggest information that we technically do not have. Note that the sentence does not qualify how many people have a negative point of view of the student protests. Mattnad (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. One way or another, it should be edited, or more context added. There's been so little coverage in Ontario - we didn't even here how the whole thing was resolved ... it just suddenly wasn't being reported anymore. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Defamation

I have seen the name of an executive of the Dawson Student Union posted many times on this page despite the removal of it from numerous users. Since this is being done without the permission or the knowledge of the man in question, it is defamation and therefore goes against the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. For this reason, I ask whoever it is that keeps doing this to stop, or if not, to explain what their goal is in continuously causing this problem.

Thank you,

Kayla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchristos8 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Responsde to Defamation

Defamation refers to slander, malicious and false allegations towards an individual in order to personally attack him, which is not the intention of the addition to the article. The student in question has been recognized and identified as a executive of the DSU. It is not defamation as he willingly posed for the camera, faced uncovered, using a Nazi salute. We aim to help to provide information in a neutral way in order to fix the neutrality issues of this page. As this is a fact, and not defamation, we will not refrain from adding the information at a later time, as this is currently being covered by the media.

Mimiminene (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The name is being posted by persons who identified him in the photograph taken by the Gazette. The person in question is aware of his implication, and as the matter is a very public issue, I disagree that this is " defamation". It is less of a problem, and more like additional information. Considering his position in the student association, his public behavior is of importance, same as is the behavior of other major players such as G.N-D. Thanks.

TinBeast (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The name doesn't appear to be in the source cited. No solid citation, no mention per WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To expand on what User:Toddst1 said above, until such time as a reliable source says that the person in the photo is the person named, any addition of the name to the article is unsourced original research. If/when a reliable source is found for the addition, then consider discussing the issue here at the talk page before adding. When dealing with living people, sources and neutral point-of-view are particularly important. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As for sources, I will kindly refer you to the student in question's Twitter page, the Dawson Student Union Executive Committee member list as well as the Testimonial section of the Dawson Persists page. Being involved in school politics means that you are subject to public scrutiny and this is what is happening. One can only use his brains and use these pages to identify this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiminene (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 June 2012‎

See WP:SYN. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we will wait for a statement from the student in question or from his organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiminene (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2012

Please change:

The main public faces of the protests are Léo Bureau-Blouin of the [[Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec]] (FECQ), Martine Desjardins of the [[Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec]] (FEUQ), Paul-Émile Auger of the [[Table de concertation étudiante du Québec]] (TACEQ), as well as Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois and Jeanne Reynolds, the two spokespersons of the [[Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante|Coalition large de l'Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante]] (CLASSE), which represents 47% of the striking students and is considered the most radical of the four groups.<ref name=natpo>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/29/quebec-student-group-rejects-liberal-proposal-to-end-strike/|title=Quebec student group rejects Liberal proposal to end strike|work=[[National Post]]|date=29 April 2012}}</ref>

to

The main public faces of the protests are Léo Bureau-Blouin of the [[Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec]] (FECQ), and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois spokesperson of the [[Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante|Coalition large de l'Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante]] (CLASSE).<ref name=natpo>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/29/quebec-student-group-rejects-liberal-proposal-to-end-strike/|title=Quebec student group rejects Liberal proposal to end strike|work=[[National Post]]|date=29 April 2012}}</ref>

This change removes names and other assertions that are not sourced. Thank you.

Tgeairn (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some discussion going here before applying {{editprotected}}? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I jumped straight to the request as the article is naming people as associated with what has become a rather controversial situation. Where those names are unsourced, they should be removed. If no other editors see the BLP issues here, I am happy to defer. Thanks for taking a look. I am reactivating the request based on BLP issues, but I will not reactivate again. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that Martine Desjardins (spokesperson for the FEUQ) ought to remain in the paragraph in question. Published on 13 June 2012, this article (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+plan+loans+bursaries+programs+inappropriate+students/6777529/story.html) is but one of many referencing her and her organization's presence in the protests. As for the TACEQ, I have no idea who they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.208.71 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The article cited above has attributable statements from Desjardins, but nowhere does she or the author say that she is associated with the protests or is a "public face" for the protests. I expect that the cited source will be valuable for the article, but not as a source to include her name in the paragraph in question here. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of depth about impacts

I came to the article today, curious on what the impacts will be on students who have now lost a year (or a semester). The impact on those graduating from grade 11 who would be entering CEGEPS that now won't have sapce. The impact on Universities that won't have space for incoming graduates. The impact on the workforce who won't have new grads to hire, etc.

I don't see one word about that. Surely there's been some dicussion of these issues in the Quebec media? Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

None whatsoever - considering the complete repeal of the tuition hike after the PQ election, one can say that it was a resounding success on all levels for the students. M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.209 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Student strikes", not "class boycott" or "boycott of classes"

It seems like most editors from Montreal will have a bit of a biased view as to whether the students' refusal to attend classes should be called a "strike" or a "boycott." It would be helpful to have some outside input about which seems more appropriate for a global audience. The media has been known to use both terms, depending on which source you look at. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, I think. Some people are tempted to reinvent the wheel or rewrite history to fit their opinion or view of things. It would be great if someone could chime in on the student protests talk page too about this issue. --69.9.85.190 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll say here what I said there. To legally be able to strike, one must provide a service. Students don't provide a service, they receive one. Therefore, students are unable to strike. They may try and copy tactics of labour unions in a "real strike", but this alone does not legitimize usage of the term. Refusing to attend class is a boycott. If you can find me a Quebec (or Canadian) law that grants students the right to strike, I will back down. The burden of proof is on those who believe the term "strike" be used. --MTLskyline (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an explanation from a source that discusses how the labeling of the movement as a "strike" is technically incorrect, however the grand majority of sources on this issue do refer to the movement as a "strike", so to change the terminology is to ignore the content of these sources in favour of a technical correctness that is not prevalent in the larger body of sources. A single line explaining that it is a boycott and not a strike should suffice, allowing the word "strike" to be used throughout in a better context.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Many publications have been calling it a strike, simply because some of the students have been calling it that. Here are 2 articles about how the CLASSE student union is voting on whether or not to continue the boycott, calling it a boycott. The only mentions of "strike" are in quotes from students. CBC Article and CTV article. MTLskyline is correct, it is a boycott, and it should be stated as such. As we all know, there is a difference between a boycott and a strike, and wikipedia should be striving to give the most correct information possible, not the most convenient information. Simply because a newsmedia article incorrectly calls it a strike, and some students, trying to hold the boycott to the same level as labour strikes, calls it a strike, doesn't make it a strike. It should be changed to boycott/boycott of classes/etc... Technically correct is the best kind of correct. 69.165.160.202 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Adam

I concur with MTLskyline: strike is a denial of service, and in the lack of service something shouldn't be called strike; if mass media already made an alias, redirect should be employed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is not a strike, the term "grève étudiante" (student strike) is used in French, in the same way as someone goes on a "hunger strike". --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this argument is a bit deceiving. The incident has been called a student strike by all major media and this term has become settled. Changing it reflects the definitional preferences of the editors on the page and not what is actually stated in the references for the page. We should be considering the word strike as part of the name of an historical event, and not as a term separated from the event itself.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would use "boycott" or "protests". However, our own Wiktionary supports this broader definition: "a work stoppage (or otherwise concerted stoppage of an activity) as a form of protest". The Merriam-Webster agrees: "a temporary stoppage of activities in protest against an act or condition". Since attending classes is an activity, "strike" seems to apply to these protests. The original meaning seems to have become broader. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

NaBUru38 is correct, Webster's has that definition (Click on that link, then see the definitions for nouns). I thought we might have to change things when OED only mentioned employees, but if it's good enough for Webster's it's good enough for me; I consider those top dictionaries the final word. "Strike" is fine in this context, and not incorrect usage. PhnomPencil (✉) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

News articles I have read often use "protests", "boycotts" and "strikes", sometimes all three in the same article. The students liken their activities to strikes, and the media can pass that along, but the same outlets use the other terms as well.

"Strike" is the political term, whereas "boycott" and "protest" are the technically correct terms and probably the most NPOV. The article of course can mention that it's sometime referred to as a strike, but we don't need to use that term in an article.Mattnad (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an implied assumption here that a single term must be adopted, and used consistently, in the article. I don't think that's the case. Based on the arguments above, both terms seems appropriate to me. News coverage employs these terms interchangeably. The Wikipedia article can do likewise. Homunculus (duihua) 16:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Role of CSN, popular support to bill 78 and mastering of the English language

I've tried to make some important changes to the article but apparently my English is not good enough for user:UnQuébécois who reverted all my edits. The introduction of this article is misleading, it put labour unions like the CSN as the leading force behind the student strike. This makes no sense. Also, there is no solid correlation between emergency Bill 78 and the supposedly general public discontent with the student tactics. Some pieces of information are missing in the intro :

• CLASSE, FEUQ, FECQ and TaCEQ are not mentioned.
• Demonstration of public support for the movement include daily nocturnal protest and pots and pans protests. Demonstration of support to striking Quebec students were held in cities like Paris, New York, London, Toronto and Vancouver.
• Bill 78 was criticized by the Bar of Quebec, Amnesty International, and United Nations Human Rights Council.
• Major demonstrations were held on March 22 and May 22 in Montreal and June 22, 2012, in Montreal and Quebec city.

--Chicoutimi (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the edits you made, and they do not make any sense, simple grammar was off, and the sentence structure was not English. Your discussion here however seems to show a better mastery of the English language than your edits did. Perhaps you should not try to translate what is on the french version, as your translations seem like either machine translations (like google translate) , or manual "word for word" translations, both of which do not take into account actual English grammar and language usage. For example: in french one would say "La rivière des outaouais", which would translate "litteraly" as "The river of the Ottawas" - however in English we actually say "The Ottawa River".--ZooFamily (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Correcting Statements

I have removed, along with other users who have recently also done so, inaccurate statements sourced to a Montreal Gazette article. The article states that Quebec students pay about half the tuition that is charged in other provinces, and makes no statement that Quebec students receive payments from other provinces. If the statement is to be re-introduced, it will need to be changed to reflect the source, not what was written.--MrBoire (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the edit warring on this, I've protected the page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

meta-discussion about administrative duties collapsed

Is it really wise for an involved administrator to take such actions?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Likely not, but exactly how would I be involved? Do you thing my drastic and highly POV edit here would make me involved and/or cloud my judgement/further my agenda? Toddst1 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC) As a contributor to the page, with the timing of these actions, one could perceive a vested interest in the content of the article.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC) If you think I've abused my authority, take it to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC) So you are one of these admins that would rather formalize every little thing, wasting time in bureaucracy and enforcing every single petty policy with no wiggle-room, instead of just a polite heads-up. Am I to take this as a request to no longer assume good faith with you?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC) No, not at all. I remain an uninvolved, neutral administrator on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the Montreal Gazette article and the single sentence that Mr. Boire removed accurately captures the meaning. The cited source from the Montreal Gazette draws a connection between Quebec sudents being the beneficiciates of transfer payments (as are Quebecers who use daycare). It's a red herring that a direct connection was stated, ergo the whole sentence can be removed. At most, a qualifier that they are indidect beneficiaries would have sufficed. As for it being POV - not really when compaired to the breathlessly supportive narrative about the heroic drama and art history majors protesting the atrocity of having to pay a few hundred dollars more per year in tuiition.140.108.1.12 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the article can see it says exactly what was in the single sentence which I quote here, "Quebec students pay 10% of the cost and receive transfer payments from other provinces whose students pay up to three times more tuition." That some editors don't like it does not mean we don't include it. The issue is whether a) the source is a reliable one (Montreal Gazette) and b) did the article discuss transfer payments relative to student tuition and provide estimates on contributions. Quoting the Gazette article

"Nearly 175,000 students are currently boycotting classes, for which they pay only about 10 per cent of the cost..."

"At some level, the Western provinces are subsidizing cheap tuition in Quebec, while their own students pay twice as much. In terms of a united federation, the effects are potentially corrosive."

A neutral reader would agree with both points. The wikipedia article is already full of poor translations from French articles, some of which are very sympathetic to the cause of the student protesters and fail to address the context within Canada. I see no issue with an NPOV violation with those given they qualify for tests (a) and (b). Mattnad (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A neutral reader? The removed sentence is synthesis. No where does the Gazette article say that students receive transfer payments from other provinces. Quebec students pay 10% of the total cost of their education, yes. They do not receive transfer payments. The government of Quebec receives transfer payments, and uses those for unspecified programs. The gazette article does not say that tuition is three times less (or more) - it says twice as much.

Both statements about tuition being less in Quebec, and that Quebec receives equalization payments are already in the article.

Arguing that there are already poorly translated statements in the article is not a valid reason to keep this poorly constructed one. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Yes, it a sore point that the West feels like they are subsidizing all the social programs in Quebec, cheap University included, but the sentence does not at all reflect the source. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary does not mean synthesis.Mattnad (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question does not summarize the Gazette article, it takes disconnected statements in the article, puts parts of them together (along with things not in the article) and states something that is not explicitly stated in the source.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

On this topic, a neutral administrator declined the the unblock request of your fellow edit warrior ZooFamily with this comment "While the statement you used could benefit from some adjustment to make it closer to what the cited source says, the essential point does substantially reflect that source...". Your point of view is known. But it's not shared by others. Do you think the Administrator is a liar or has an ax to grind?Mattnad (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? What statement did I use? Do not attribute this edit to me, as It is not mine. I think you are confused.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm writing about is what an administrator wrote on your colleague ZooFamily's talk page. Check out the hyperlinks.Mattnad (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are talking about, as the sentence in question was removed by myself, and ZooFamily, so how is that my (or his/her) statement?. You are the one who keeps adding the incorrect statement back in.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water.....Mattnad (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. This page is protected from editing with information that is contrary to the source. What is the point of protecting the page this way. If anyone reads the sourced article, they would clearly see that the info in the wikipedia article does not accurately reflect the info given by the newspaper. What is more important, pushing political views on the situation, or accurately bringing facts to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.5.221 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Propose a change. Don't just complain about it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because what everyone else has done (including you) is so much better? I propose removing the sentence completely, as it is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this new user, whose account was created JUST to comment here, reads a lot like the banned Zoofamily and his/her sock puppets.Mattnad (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to propose a change and not just complain. I was also advised by the wikipedia page i was trying to comment on that i should create an account. I am guessing every person that does not have your point of view on this subject is one in the same also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, what is your proposal? Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are too hyperfocused on your own point of view, and discrediting everyone else that does not agree with you, that you missed it, go back and read, it starts with "I propose". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

So if you're asking for opinions, I'd say it's not redundant and captures a perspective, succinctly, that is not elsewhere in the article. So there's at least one editor who disagrees with your opinion.Mattnad (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for opinions, you've already stated yours. You are also incorrect in that it is not elsewhere in the article, you have to read no further than the next sentence that talks about transfer payments, capturing the same "perspective". The only thing in the sentence that is correctly "summarized", as you've put it, is the 10% cost to the student, the rest is completely different from what is in the article, the article talks about twice not three times cost in other provinces. So all in all the sentence is both replicative, and non factual, save the first seven words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not a friend of Mr. Boire?Mattnad (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks more like you are trying to create a Red herring, by Poisoning the well, instead of dealing with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That red herring has been blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Quebec

 Done

Time line is inaccurate and misleading Co-ordinated smoke-bomb attacks crippled Montreal's subway system Thursday, cutting off service and snarling the city's morning commute for thousands of people.

May 10, 2012 Alleged student protesters used smoke bombs to disrupt morning rush hour results in charges of terrorism to be laid by the crown. No one was injured but the resulting political fall out alienated many student protesters supports including unions who had thus far been supporting the students in their strike.

76.64.238.233 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Robert

Edit Request

Since there have been anonymous complaints that there are no reliable sources (discounting the Montreal gazette article) noting how Quebec students benefit from transfer payments from other provinces, can we add the following to the end of the "Historical context" section.

A 2007 Meclean's article titled "Le deadbeat" noted that Quebec receives billions from the rest of Canada in transfer payments and that "...a Quebec student entering university pays on average 65 per cent less than his equivalent in Ontario."

The primary point of the Maclean's article is that Quebec is spending far too much and depends on transfer payments from the rest of Canada to do that. It then provides the student tuition rates in comparison to other provinces as an example. This is consistent with, and supportive of the observation in the Gazette article.Mattnad (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be a little careful here seeing as it is not proven that the equalization payments are used for university education. Mattnad's proposed edit here is perfect since it acknowledges this is a claim made by a newspaper and not a fact, but the previous sentence ("Quebec students pay 10% of the cost and benefit from transfer payments from other provinces whose students pay up to three times more tuition.") should be either removed or rephrased so it doesn't sound like a fact, since it is just a claim made in an opinion column at the Gazette. I am somewhat skeptical of the claim in general seeing as equalization payments don't take into account how much provinces spend; it only depends on their "potential revenue" which is a number based on how much tax a province would collect at the average Canadian tax rate. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 23:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: It looks like you are still working out the fine details of this, so I have disabled the {{edit protected}} template for now. Please reactivate the template when you have worked out exactly you would like to put in the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that user Jmajeremy had no issue with the sentence I proposed, but was concerned about another sentence. However, I'm a little unclear how to address his contention that an article from a reliable has "claims" and not "facts". Mattnad (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't what "JmaJeremy" proposing exactly what was proposed two "subjects" further up? But was discounted based on the fact that it had been brought to the attention by a "sock-poppet"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

recent edit

why was fringe put inside of quotes? does not make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the word fringe itself is a weasel word in this context. Instead of naming the groups, they are lumped together and labelled "fringe" - whatever that is supposed to mean other than something most likely negative. 131.137.247.6 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2013

The following claim:

Quebec is a net recipient of transfer payments from the federal government, and it uses those payments to pay for social programs, including education. The province does not disclose precisely how it spends the transfer payments, which have become politically charged for people in provinces that give more than they receive.[14]

Seems to me. The reference provided for "The province does not disclose precisely how it spends the transfer payments" doesn't actually say that. Furthermore, it is an *editorial* from the National Post, which is widely known as a right-wing media outlet. As a person living in Quebec, I see the above statement as strongly charged politically and far from NPOV. In general, the historical context section seems far from the neutrality I expect from wikipedia, and should at least be marked as such.

Furthermore, shouldn't this article be semi-protected so that participation can resume? It has been locked down for months now... TheAnarcat (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The article protection has now been lowered to semi-protection, so you should be able to make the edit yourself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Le devoir is not exactly a centrist publication, but it's writing is cited in the article. Why pick on the national post only?Mattnad (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

History of the Red Square

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 ..

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)

NPOV

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120520121917/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/news/politics/molotov-cocktails-launched-at-montreal-protests-following-legal-crackdown/article2437892/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/molotov-cocktails-launched-at-montreal-protests-following-legal-crackdown/article2437892/

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)