Talk:Coastal GasLink Pipeline

Active discussions
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Updating article class?Edit

This might not be a start-quality article anymore. Also, it probably should be added to the appropriate Indigenous peoples in Canada portals or projects. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Augmenting one side at the expense of consequences to others?Edit

Alaney2k, I am going to restore the "Consequences" section, because otherwise the article comes across very strongly as focusing on the reasons for and extent of opposition while dismissing the effects of the blockade upon non-reservation people. (For example, you completely buried the layoffs.) In parallel, I am also going to back-divide the supporting protests between rail protests and all other protests. Generally speaking, "Rail disruptions" really should be about what is done to rail service specifically; and thus would not include non rail-related protests or layoffs.

I did not check editing history in sufficient detail to know who exactly overhauled the "Opponents and proponents" section. That overhaul is not NPOV at all, not with only one voice being cited as being in favour of the pipeline and two dense paragraphs against. I will later restore something closer to what I wrote earlier (one paragraph pro, one paragraph anti, one paragraph focusing on the sovereignty question). Incidentally, no matter what the conflict, it is customary in neutral writing to list the pro side first, then the anti. Doing so does not indicate that either side has more weight or value. In contrast, opposing custom automatically shifts a writing bias to the opposing side.

For now, I am not going to touch the way you expanded and changed the "Negotiations" section, although that kind of quoting and detail really does belong in a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. I am also leaving alone the way you moved the partial ending of the blockade, although I personally do think that it belongs under "Negotiations" because it is part of resolution, if only as a gesture of good faith. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@66.11.171.90: It is poor article style to have single-paragraph sections. I don't consider that to be "burying" some text. I consider putting that together with related material. Honestly, I feel like you have a POV here. If you feel like the article is non-neutral, put the tag at the top of the page and we can discuss it. Another thing was using the 'Protests' heading. The Protests heading is used as an anchor from other articles. So it is needed. I added the paragraph about the chief from the other nation. There was not something there. The article is not finished and has several editors, so I would appreciate it if you did not single me out. I am not trying to push anything. Alaney2k (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Coastal GasLink Pipeline" page.