Talk:Idle No More

Methods should include vandalism

Vandalism has now taken place in the name of Idle No More, therefore it should be added to the list of methods, as is shown by this article on the National Post's website - http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/11/sir-john-a-macdonald-statue-vandalized-ahead-of-birthday-celebration-idle-no-more-protest/

Do you have any source that states that Idle No More was responsible for the vandalism? I ask since the source you cite does not state that, it states that the statue was vandalized, and separately mentions the Idle No More protest. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There's all kinds of spurious reporting and spin like that, and there will always be effort to insert it here, and that's why it's done (i.e. the vandalism claiming to be in the name of Idle No More). The movement is very clear about its non-violent basis and aims; the anti-movement has been vociferous in making and fabricating claims of "terrorism" and now "vandalism".......More of the same to be expected. Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd want a more reliable source than the National Post to put that in anyway. Because the person who started the thread seems to think it's used by policy (vs as a side effect or as a false flag initiative) Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear evidence of Tory talking points; POV notice

I'm back, and I'd rather not be, but the outrageous Tory spin in parts of this article is excessive; the first paragraph of the Background section says that the national media and the Harper government (tm), otherwise known as the federal government before rebranding which is apparently acceptable in Wikipedia "because it can be cited" ("in use by the Tory-friendly national media").....that they were who brought the conditions on northern Ontario reserves; no mention of Chief Spence's declaration of the state of emergency which WAS the source of that spotlight, no mention of local MP Charlie Angus who also brought things to the fore; and it goes on to repeat the slander trying to target Chief Spence as being corrupt and mismanaging.....Tory control of Wikipedia is already evinced by the disputed articles which led to my banning during the election ccampaign, and it's clear their army of internet drones out to "correct facts", as they put it, is out in force in Wikipedia, many of them it seems to me actual admins and probably paid as consultants despite writing articles on hockey and donuts to justify their existence. This article needs a serious overhaul by NPOV persons familiar with the subject; not teenagers in Scotland or retired admittedly-rightwing persons in Australia and Virginia.....OK yeah I'm pointing fingers but someone has to; I feel like block-deleting that whole pargraph because it sounds just like something that would come from the PMO or one of the many Tory trolls in the HuffPo and other newsmedia forums. This stinks to high heaven; I'm on vacation in Cambodia but keeping an eye on things back home, and this one just rankles me....I'm gonna look through the edit history and see how this began; it's clear to me it's been heavily spun....do I want to get involved again? Not if speaking my mind will get some people with admin power but little actual knowledge of the subject at hand to gang f**k me again.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have specific diffs showing sourced material that was removed, or sources that support the material that you want back in the article? I'm willing to support the indigenous perspective if it is sourced. GregJackP Boomer! 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing the neutrality issue here. Can anyone illuminate? Ottawakismet (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Background" section is uncited, and creates somewhat of a narrative speaking against the validity of the Attawapiskat people's position. Any background on this topic should probably summarize long-term trends in First Nation's issues instead. The Interior (Talk) 22:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can sort of see that--are there any RS for the tribe's position and the background? The material speaking of misuse of funds can also be a BLP issue, as it could cast Chief Spencer in a negative light without being sourced. Until we can get more information on this, I'm going to remove some of the section on that basis, unless someone can provide cites. GregJackP Boomer! 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the POV issue could be addressed by creating a separate (sub)section for "Hunger strikes related to INM" and a (sub)section for "Criticism of INM". Bear in mind, the article BLP for Theresa Spence also mentions the hunger strike in a lot of detail. I think the INM article here shouldn't be used as a coatrack for the hunger strike(s), especially since the INM organizers spoke to distance the movement from the FN leadership (although they acknowledged Spence's support of INM). The INM movement is still very fluid, so it's going to be difficult to pin down a version of this article that would keep all sides satisfied. I agree that if anyone sees particular POV problems, like misrepresenting sources, or something of that sort, please point it out so that it can be corrected by someone.OttawaAC (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

About the RS thing, there's a case to be made that the national media are not RS, and especially because they have a habit of recirculating press copy generated by the PMO or public relations firms/"think tanks" et al......and yes, the whole history of the Indian Act and the imposition of policy on "wards of the state" is the background, not just conditions on northern Ontario reserves; and that was presented as though it was the fault of the bands, which is a Tory talking point and SunMedia/Quebecor etc.....and about the hunger strike thing, Chief Spence is now on the Hunger strike page.Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Great to see you back Skookum. So what else should we do to work towards removing the POV tag?Moxy (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tory control of Wikipedia is already evinced by the disputed articles which led to my banning during the election ccampaign, and it's clear their army of internet drones out to "correct facts", as they put it, is out in force in Wikipedia, many of them it seems to me actual admins and probably paid as consultants despite writing articles on hockey and donuts to justify their existence." I'm almost looking forward to his definition of NPOV. Awesome editor on BC geography, but man oh man this is not going to end well. PhnomPencil (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The definition of NPOV for me is TRUTH and FAIR coverage, not spun misinformation parroting Tory p.r. departments and their trollpack of bloggers. NPOV here means making sure the biased rhetoric and twisted language used to try to defame natives and Chief Spence in particular is not inserted as if it were true. "this will not end well" if the twisted misinformation that comes out of the government's agenda is allowed to stand, or is defended, and that op-ed from the MSM is not represented as if accurate.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, some pretty outrageous things have been added on this page, it seems clear that some editors are trying to sabotage it. I removed 'extortion' from the tactics, because in no way can political protest be construed as extortion. I think I might be done trying to help working on this page, its becoming frustrating to see the way it is developing. Ottawakismet (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hunger Strike

There appears to be extensive confusion about what constitutes a hunger strike, a hunger strike includes drinking tea, broth, and other solid foods. Gandhi drank orange juice. Please read what a hunger strike is before falsely alleging that Spence is not on a hunger strike. Ottawakismet (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There are ample reliable sources describing Spence's act as a hunger strike. This will be restored to the article and efforts to eliminate it fought. 208.38.52.98 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit history shows its one user repeatedly trying to make the changes from 99.253.245.23 Always the same edit, never anything else Ottawakismet (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources have started referring to it as a 'fast', which is more accurate. Peter Grey (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"the reliable sources" are the mainstream media, who are highly POV and have a bad habit of emulating the Tory/PMO script/talking point/language, same as they alone promote teh use of "oil sands" instead of "tar sands" ("oil sands" is found outside Canada only in industry materials; only in the Canadiah MSM is the term 'oil sands' commonplace). The questionability of the MSM's role in his set of issues (Native affairs) is central to all Wikipedian coverage of Canadian issues; just because "reliable" sources are starting to use the propagandistic spin "diet" doesn't mean Wikipedia should play that game; unless the same were applied to Hunger strike and it was renamed "fast" because some CAnadian newspaper editors were beginning to adopt the ruling party's choice of language. We should classify the Dalai Lama as a "splitist" and "terrorist" because the People's Daily says he is?Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should avoid the term altogether, since many people, including media that are blatantly pro-Idle No More, are understanding it in the Oxford Dictionary meaning (for example Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 4th ed.), and not the looser definition at the hunger strike Wikipedia page. Peter Grey (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so we shouldn't be using the OED's meaning, because that meaning is "blatantly pro-Idle No More", we should avoid it entirely? And use what instead? "Fast" "liquid diet", "diet", or any of the other ANTI-Idle No More terms being spewed into the media by the government spin machine? "Looser definition" as opposed to whose?Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The dictionary definition is the refusal of all food in protest against the legitimacy of one's incarceration, none of which applies to Spence. Even the CBC, which is pro-Spence, has backtracked from the term hunger strike, since what Spence was doing does not fit the understanding most people have and the term is a misrepresentation.

Strictly speaking, it's not even a fast unless we know what her caloric intake is and how it compares to her regular diet. Peter Grey (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That opinion is POV, and show me hunger strikes were all food was refused....Gandhi etc ate something. Your comment is POV because it is aping the ongoing media onslaught from Tory trolls in forums and recognizable as such. IMO your post is just part of the same propaganda campaign, unwitting or not.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Legislation

Don't know if this is worth commenting on, but the status of the bills mentioned in the article might be made clearer. Bill C-45 is no longer actually a bill; it's received assent and is now law. As for the rest of the legislation, I believe at least some of it has passed the House. Just sayin', in case anyone wants to verify. OttawaAC (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

certain edit was correct in being made though sourceable if rendered less POV

this edit is factual though spun. More or less, it wasn't an auditor, it was a third party manager, at a huge rate of pay and also a Tory party stalwart and someone with other "third party management" experience. It was NOT an investigation, it was an attempt to impose an outside manager replacing Chief Spence and her council; at great cost, billed to the band, and with a track record of third party mismanaging funds but still billing the government at a ridiculous $125/hour for doing squat except make things worse; by that |I mean this particular third party manager; the basis of the information was correct, i.e. the government tried to implicate the band for mismanagement to defelct from its own underfunding of other matters, and also by way of character assassination of Chief Spence, which is going.Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There's also an audit, covering 2005-2011, and at the moment under review by Aboriginal Affairs and North Development and Health Canada. The results haven't yet been made public. The auditor is a different matter from the third party manager. The two issues may have been confused in that edit... OttawaAC (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NWPA in background section

The information of the NWPA in the background section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idle_No_More#Background) seems to intentionally and inaccurately portray it as an environmental act. Just my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.16.10 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection

I've requested temporary semi-protection for this page due to repeated IP vandalism. GregJackP Boomer! 04:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that the 99.*** and 207.*** IP editors using traceroute and geolocate are based in Texas and Kansas, creating quesations about who is making such partisan government-favouring edits.Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your point? GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Common knowledge that US "information management consultants" are part and parcel of the Tory infomachine; why are such partisan, clearly spin-directed posts, originating from a foreign country maybe it the US or anywhere)? Yes, editors can be from anywhere, but the partisan nature of these edits combined with their origin points to evidence of the "massive right-wing conspiracy" I was called down for claiming on CANTALK exists; no, no conspiracy, the in-your-face facts are clear enough on that count. As for the current state of this article, since that background paragraph was de-spun and other information has been added, I'm more satisfied with its neutrality but am not sure if it's for me to remove the POV tag......there are enough experienced editors here now, I think, to keep an eye on any more partisan-spin games. The origin of those edits being in another country is more of note for a political analyst than of immediate Wikipedia attention; though it's not the first time there's been partisan meddling on Canadian pages by non-Canadian IPs and editors as well.Skookum1 (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I wasn't sure what you were getting at. GregJackP Boomer! 17:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

1) Please edit the list of Idle No More Founders there are and have only ever been 4 Founder: Sheelah McLean, Sylvia McAdam, Jess Gordon and Nina Wilson. Evidence of this is easily found on the ONLY official Idle No More website http://idlenomore.ca/ and/or http://idlenomore.ca/index.php/about-us

2) Please edit initial protest. Chief Theresa Spence did not start Idle No More nor did she make the initial protest. The 4 Founders met in early November and the 1st rally was on the 10th of November 2012 in Saskatoon. Again see website for Founder contacts if necessary. Chief Theresa is not the reason fr Idle No More but rather someone who has chosen to lend her voice to the cause.

3) www.idlenomore.com will redirect but the actual website should be listed as www.idlenomore.ca

4) Very little about the mission and vision o the actual movement is included and it really should be. Please see the official website for outlines of press releases including this one which lays all that out in an easy to read way.

http://idlenomore.ca/index.php/about-us/press-releases/item/58-press-release-idle-no-more

Thank you!!

MeghanJRice (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

MeghanJRice (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the corrections as indicated, and added a subsection on "Vision and goals". (Please note that WP has a goal of its own to strive for neutral point of view in covering topics, so it cannot simply regurgitate press releases.) OttawaAC (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

By the same principle it can't just quote news copy which is itself often enough pure press release, repeated by news agencies often without change. And if blogs are to be dismissed as reliable because opinion, the same rule must be stringently applied to op-ed as much as to completely skewed news coverage and the usual grandstanding by the spin machines (of any stripe). Gets hard to draw the line because of editorial opinion intruding into what should otherwise be straightforward coverage of events and ideas; newspapers and news conglomerates exist for the purpose of information control, under the guise of "newspapers of record". Often then are not, and obviously cater to advertisers instead of the public interest; it should go without saying among the largest of those advertisers is the government (especially when it uses public money for what is really campaign purposes). Only by including alternate sources including reputable or keynote blogs can coverage of any topic be fully fair; since the mainstream media aka the "reliable sources" have shown over and over that they are not.Skookum1 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Skookum, you raise some great points, but here's where I take issue with the debate over editors' bias in this article: you could take the view that all commercial media is part of an overarching military-industrial complex, sure. And too much malarky pandering to advertising interests passes as news. But I think dismissing mass media out of hand is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sometimes decent bare-bones information can still be gleaned from the daily newspapers. Mass media doesn't exist just to control the news... sometimes they run stuff without impacting how it might backfire on corp interests, due to tight deadlines and the need to get there first with what the readers/viewers want to know. Regarding blogs & indie news outlets... I have no problem with them if they reflect a serious effort at journalism and analysis, or have another use (e.g., I cited a rabble.ca op ed by Palmater to indicate where she stood regarding her own views). OTOH, if I cite a right-wing blog, or a centrist one, what then? (Evidence of a totalitarian conspiracy or fascist sympathies? As long as a source is identified, I think discerning readers can sort out if it's left, centre, or right on the editorial/political spectrum and interpret it however they may.) I hate to rain on the parade, but I think it's worthwhile to make a conscious effort at neutrality, which includes considering opposing POVs (playing devil's advocate if necessary), maybe if media that's self-identified with left-, right-, or centrist views should be more explicitly mentioned in articles like this one. I don't know. As for Op-Ed pieces, if they're a source for verifiable info, I don't take much issue with them. And don't forget, indie news outlets have their own funding from somewhere, and they are no more likely to take a chance on biting the hand that feeds them.OttawaAC (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but they don't have zillions behind them (and the big banks) like the major media do.....here read this and bear in mind that in ref to Conrad Black and Izzy Asper their lockdown on media and politics in this country was total for a while, and the mainstream media purged of "leftists"......the issue to me is why are their newspapers considered "reliable sources" when blogs by notable writers and organizations can't be linked? Why in one discussion somewhree on teh Vancouver Olympics pages, "fringe" media were removed; targeted, that is, and including Canadian Dimension and other notable orgs/mags...WP:R and WP:V need revisiting, given the reality that hte major media, like the Tory war-chest with the new election funding situation, are so overbearing and overwhelming. The difference between op-ed that distorts facts in course of its argument, rather than simply mentioning them, is of note too; equivocating between PBS and Fox, for example, or between the CBC and SunMedia for that matter, saying "one's the same as the other" is playing into the argument that lies are just as legitimate as truth. The issue of WP:R/WP:V should not just be "truthiness" but actual facts; WP:V is supposed to address that but when newspapers and media regularly circulate false information, only to retract it after the damage is done, or take part in advertorial campaigns which is what I see of the media and comments forum slanders of Chief Spence and INM, well, "something must be done"...it's partly this issue that drove me from Wikipedia in disgust, seeing so much copy regularly "worked over" by people using biased media as cites and then dismissing critical media as "only blogs"...I don't have a problem with rightist blogs being used as cites so long as they're factual.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

IP comment placed at top of page

Refactored to talk and hatted off, clear the top of the talk page GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-productive IP rant

ALL NON-INDIGENOUS PEOPLES MUST STOP COLONIZING THE SO-CALLED 'AMERICAS' AND ESPECIALLY THE UNITED STATES AND MUST REPATRIATE...ALL AFRICANS TO AFRICA, EUROPEANS TO EUROPE, ASIANS TO ASIA, ETC...THIS DOES NOT MEAN SEGREGATION BUT A RESPECT FOR GLOBAL HUMAN DIVERSITY, ETHNIC AND CULTURAL AND EVERYTHING WHICH STEMS FROM THERE. REPATRIATION OUT OF THE GREAT 'AMERICA' NOW! INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS MUST FREE THEMSELVES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.194.39.220 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I just added a NPOV tag to this article. The introduction and background sections use weasel words and present only the First Nations' point of view. In the other direction, the criticism section is also unbalanced with the support section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenspindle (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see weasel words on both sides. For example:

"While omnibus bills had been presented to parliament by previous governments, the perceived ideological nature of the changes proposed in Bill C-45 played to fears of a supposed right-wing agenda held by the Conservatives, particularly concerning the removal of the term "absolute surrender" in section 208, among others."

I have no idea what that means except that the last person that edited the paragraph apparently thinks that section 208 is just hunky-dory. I was here trying to find out more about the group so *I* have no idea what section 208 is... The INM sections meanwhile are in danger of getting buried in committee-speak. I'd take a stab at helping that, but it seems like the there is some (possibly justified) paranoia going around. Yes, groups sometimes pay people to manipulate Wikipedia. I have seen this elsewhere. I am not such a person ;) Just an expatriate who gives a damn whether the rivers are clean back home. Just saying, as friendly advice -- if willing hands will pitch in, you probably should not trip so much on where the people are. If they are impeding progress of course, that's another story ;) Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The presence of spin machines, wash and dry, on Wikipedia, is found across political articles; when I found this article I was nauseous to the degree it had been allowed to run amok with all kinds of POV rants and patronizing terms (harsher than mere weasel words.) It was serious enough it brought me back into Wikipedia after a two-year boycott for protesting evident spin-machine dudu on a series of articles about you-know-who; the AfD failed and I was blocked, suffice to say; not meaning to rant just to fill you in. Political articles of all kinds have such problems, and yes, it's obvious that people are paid to do it, and in the Tories' case there's been a series of membership meetings and training sessions about interloping on the web, whether in FB or in Wikipedia or on youtube or in any news blogs; it's known in blogdom that some IPs don't come from just p.r. agencies and minor lobbyists, but also from government 'information centres' as well as the RCMP; here in relation to this, after just coming back in a few weeks ago, I discovered a series of hostile attack edits on Theresa Spence and used geolocate on them, and a glance at user contributions, that it was somebody with a military interest, not sure if it was a military IP, and could have been just a private military person if so. Sure. OK. I won't go on, just wanted to endorse your view, and I'll probably get slammed for being so blunt. WP:No Paid Editing has all kinds of interesting exceptions and clauses and templates now, by the way; and "verifiable sources" and "reliable sources" typically mean the mainstream media, when not academia; blogs are wholly dismissed unless fought for one by one, as "only opinion" and "unreliable" as if the main media WERE, ditto with news sources dismissed as "fringe" when what they are is factual and not fresh from the dryer..... Anyways, that's not what I dropped by, see next section.Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Re the Solidarity section; rename and maybe split article

This section could be vastly larger, and the lede should be expanded to talk about how it's become a worldwide movement, not just solidarity protests but growth in indigenous activism and networking worldwide. The list in [relevant section] is surprisingly brief to me, as the number of places and countries that have had Idle No More activism and support is LOTS longer than what is here only a shortlist. My idea is to make the CAnadian material focussed here, and not a POV fork but a content fork List of places with Idle No More demonstrations - needs better title of course - and a referenced list of them ALL, not just the relatively very few here. Global Idle No More is a somewhat different beastie that the one at home, and reactions to the native Canadian crisis (and it is a crisis, and no that's not POV but ya OR but fairly obvious) as reported or commented on from other nations and peoples. AS with so much, I don't have time to do the expansion work right now, but given what I see online about all this, the whole section on solidarity protests needs to be at least greatly expanded; but methinks it's actually a separate topic, though inseparable also....Skookum1 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Vision, Manifesto, Call to Action, and The Story

Much of the information on the official Idle No More website www.idlenomore.ca has been updated. The vision listed here is no longer an accurate description and there are 3 more sections on the website that give better(more) information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evamarie07 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The name?

Based on the name, I had the impression that this movement was about long idle times, for example at drive-thru fast-food restaurant windows, and the resulting pollution. Apparently that's not the case. What, exactly, does the name mean? Who was idle, prior to this movement? Because I cannot figure it out. 24.57.218.21 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you trolling or what? The movement was started by four native women about themselves being "idle no more". Get a grip, or an education. Whichever.Skookum1 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

I made the following changes:

- was a protest movement > is a protest movement - unemployed First Nations > First Nations

These were reverted with the comment "reverted POV edits."

I am simply aiming for accuracy, while maintaining neutral POV. It's a fact that Idle No More protests continue to take place, thus I changed it to present tense. Additionally, this article references individuals such as Chief Theresa Spence, who is a chief and not unemployed, thus it was inaccurate to include the word "unemployed" in the opening paragraph. If anyone would revert these changes, let's discuss it first. Interlaker (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

there's a history to anti-native edits on this page, and they were rank and many until I found them and fixed them and took out the SunMedia-type slant; this and the Theresa Spence article had been damaged by such activity for months as it seems those who have them watchlisted are not up on Canadian political and media realities; all edits here need watching..and that was a very experienced-editor kind of edit comment, claiming to remove POV when actually creating it; I won't be around much in coming months/years so please keep a close eye on this.Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a good case of a misleading/untrue edit comment being used to do a highly POV edit. That IP should be permanently blocked forthwith for that kind of nonsense.... especially given the history of this article's similarly "nasty" edits.Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarly the arrogance and presumption of this edit comment, threatening you with a ban, as if an IP user had that power, I've seen before, it was used on me in the Adrian Dix circus; both these IPs should be blocked IMO because of such disruptive/presumptive edit comments and edits. Purely disruptive in nature, that's their game from the start. Interlaker, I suggest you take this to the POV discussion board and get more eyes on this; and to the POV board I'd say rather than the edit war or 3RR board, as this one set of reversions isn't at 3RR yet. I dislike ANI turf for what others know to be obvious reasons, but this is a top importance article that has seen POV activism of this kind before and should be protected. At least. Needs eyes, and people aware of the realities.Skookum1 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is/was

The opening paragraph stated that Idle No More "was" a protest movement. I changed it to "is" for greater accuracy, but my change has been reverted twice. Idle No More keeps a running list of events they are involved in, and the most recent is from October 2014:

http://www.idlenomore.ca/mining_blockade_sisters_in_spirit_vigils_and_more

Here is a third-party news article about Idle No More activities dated September 2014:

http://aptn.ca/news/2014/09/25/child-pilgrims-walk-500-km-missing-murdered-indigenous-women/

Interlaker (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

needs permanent, not temporary, protection

The recent return of gamesmanship over "is/was" and repeated attempts to add "morbidly obese" to mention of Chief Spence's hunger strike indicate that anti-native attempts to sabotage this page will continue indefinitely; three apparently-connected IP addresses are who has been doing this:

• 199.119.233.136
• 199.7.157.8
• 199.119.233.139

Similar IPs were behind the POV/BLP violations taht led to the recent temporary protection:

• 199.7.157.56
• 199.7.157.9

All are "Globalive Communications" (WINDmobile) in Toronto but theoretically all from the same phone. Misleading edit comments were and are par for the course, including - when re-adding POV bias- claiming to be "correcting" it.. that from 63.238.138.132 (which is in Chicago)..or just putting "minor" edit onsomething clearly controversial.

This article needs permanent protection; and all those IPs should be kept on file to reference for CHECKUSER when SPAs show up to continue their "improvements".Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming there is no objection I am willing to protect or semi-protect the page. If the only disruptions are by IPs, keeping it to autoconfirmed should do it. I'll take a look at the history. - CorbieV^☊ 17:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this still ongoing?

I remember this from 2012, and I haven't heard of it since. Shouldn't the article be written in the past tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.112.195 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree about thinking this article needs to be rewritten using the past tense. The last items mentioned/cited in this article are over 3 years old (January 2013). (Oh. I found a Facebook page that is currently updated that appears to be related to the original Idle No More movement.)Acornwebworks (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Copyedit: 'More".Furthermore' needs a space. 2001:569:7857:4900:D861:77CD:B4DF:AFD9 (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Willondon (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is "absolute surrender" important?

When the Background section tells me that of particular concern is the removal of the term "absolute surrender" in Section 208, it doesn't tell me why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxell (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Idle No More. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113101803/http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/p/background-on-idle-no-more.html to http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/p/background-on-idle-no-more.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113101803/http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/p/background-on-idle-no-more.html to http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/p/background-on-idle-no-more.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301123321/http://tracklaura.com/2014/01/29/documentary/ to http://tracklaura.com/2014/01/29/documentary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)