Talk:List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary

misrepresentation of a source

In the lead, there is the following sentence:

A variety of events throughout the history of Calgary portray widespread public sentiment about racism, classism and other forms of discrimination

It cites Clue Magazine. I Googled and found this copy of it. It in no way supports the claim in this Wikipedia article. The "Clue" article is about contemporary racism within the gay and lesbian community, with interviews of members. It's not about history. It's not about society in general. It doesn't say much more than what the interview subjects say. It doesn't reference any of the incidents of "unrest" of the Wikipedia article. In fact the words "history" and "classism" aren't even present. Interestingly, the the web link, even shows the the "Clue" article misrepresented what somebody said, and admitted their error. --Rob (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The replacement sources (at least the ones I could check) clearly didn't support the statement. I think the editor responsible, should show some quotes from sources, to show the source supports what they claim. Also, regardless, if you put *opinion* in the article, you need to attribute the opinion in the body of the article. You can't state opinion as fact. --Rob (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I managed to check the one offline source "The African Diaspora..." by using Google books. Page 97 doesn't support the claim in any way (Google books is some what limiting in what can be read, I could read the page once, but not return). So, basically, I've now checked all of the sources, and none supported the statement. Giving a relevant quote would make checking a claim vastly easier. --Rob (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and refrain from undoing constructive edits. I will not cite specific passages to you, nor will I further justify my usage of particular sources to you, aside from saying that I addressed this in the AfD you have brought against this article. • Freechild'sup? 05:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you won't supply any supporting passage. There are none, and never were, in the sources you provided. You say you won't "further justify" sources, yet you've never provided any justification on this talk page, whatsoever. You're first ever talk page comment, is to say, you won't "further justify". Just justify once, please. --Rob (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I will redact my statement above. The phrase, "A variety of events throughout the history of Calgary portray widespread public sentiment towards and government acknowledgment of racism, classism and other forms of discrimination," is supported by the following citations:

• [in reference to the shooting of a Sudanese man in Calgary, "The only impact his identification as Sudanese had, as far as mainstream (sic) society was concerned, was to introduce an 'us' versus 'them' mentality..." [Again, in reference to Calgary,] "...otherness (whether based in place, race, or something else) as a general pattern, comes in handy when the mainstream wants to disassociate itself from something else" - Tettey, W. and Puplampu, K.P. (2005) The African Diaspora in Canada: Negotiating Identity & Belonging. University of Calgary Press. p 97. This citation illustrates the premise of the statement about "widespread public sentiment".
• "Numerous reports in Calgary have identified racism as a pervasive factor in the lives of members of nondominant ethnocultural groups be it in employment, health, social service, justice, or education systems." This is from the summary of a report by the City of Calgary, that is, the government of Calgary, in which they are acknowledging the research, and hitherto, the existence, of forms of discrimination in the city. - "Perceptions of Racism and Hate", City of Calgary.
• "The allegations I have brought forward are indicative of the organizational health of the service," said a former policeman bringing charges of discrimination against the chief of police. This statement adds secondary support for the statement that "racism, classism and other forms of discrimination" exist in Calgary. - Van Rassel, J. "Cops accuse Calgary chief of ignoring racism", Calgary Herald. June 3, 2004.

This is a ridiculous exercise, and completely runs against WP's policy of assuming good faith. I hope that you will refrain from accusing me further. • Freechild'sup? 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that racism exists in Calgary. that's not contested. You haven't linked the events of this article to support the statement. You also phrased an opinion as a fact. You have done nothing to address the issue. --Rob (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite my laboring to answer your lack of desire to reach consensus you still are not contented; yet I firmly believe I have answered your criticism. Continuous hostility and the absence of good faith does little to further the development of WP. Will you join me in mediation so we can settle our differences with the assistance of a third party? I will accept their judgment; however, there is nothing further I can do to rectify your insatiability. • Freechild'sup? 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept the verdict of other editors, whether or not, it agrees with me. I'm hoping the AFD and WP:RSN gets a third-opinion. --Rob (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying WP:RSN - that will fulfill the "previous attempt" requirement here. • Freechild'sup? 06:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"one of whom wrote"

Instead of saying "one of whom wrote" state their name!!! This is utter sillieness. Why is there so much resistance to attributing who is saying what. And in the last sentence of the lead, we have yet another opinionated sentence, without any the vaguest of attribution in the body. Since yet again, the sources are offline, I have to rely on the editor adding the material, to add the proper attribution. In addition to reflecting these opinions, this article *must* all major points of view, even ones the primary editor disagrees with. Please stop cherry-picking sources. Please stop stating opinions as fact. --Rob (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta → List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta — As per discussions at recent AFD nomination, timeline implies a relationship between events, when the events are connected only by location. I suggest list would be a more appropriate title. — justinfr (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. This type of article is probably best called a chronology; on WP we call it a timeline, as it is a sequencing of events according to their dates. This article is not a mere list, as all of the events are portrayed in a linear fashion. If you look at List of riots you will see how the format in this article is appropriately named a timeline versus a list. • Freechild'sup? 01:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I see no difference in formatting between List of riots and the current article. Both are chronological lists of unrelated events. Unless "linear fashion" means something different--something beyond just chronological order? justinfr (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Thanks for your comment justinfr; its nice to have other editors involved. From your comment, I don't understand whether you believe that either riots or civil unrest are real. Could you elaborate? • Freechild'sup? 02:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't totally understand your question. To attempt to answer it, yes, I believe both riots and civil unrest are real. My point was that List of riots is just what it says, a list of riots. IMO, the current article is also a list of riots--ones that took place in Calgary. My contention is that, beyond location, the events are unrelated and more properly called a list rather than a timeline, as per my comment below. My quibble is related to the definition of list versus timeline or chronology. justinfr (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is arbitrary collection, as are most lists. Generally, in this list, each item is largely independent of the others. I see no real relevant difference between this and List of riots, other than the geographic limition. A list doesn't become a timeline, just because you restrict it to a single city. A list remains a list, even when each item is a short description. List of riots can avoid per-event descriptions, because it's so big, and because each event is article worthy (which is where detail comes in) --Rob (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support The name itself introduces point of view before the reader even starts to read it.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question. What does this statement mean? That a riot is POV? That calling something civil unrest is POV? • Freechild'sup? 07:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That too, but the fact that it is called a timeline immediately gives the reader the impression that these events are in someway related. Other than being in the same city there isn't much, if any, relation between them. That is far too tenuous of a relation for me to call it a timeline. As far as riots and civil unrest go, one could say that any entries should come with citation from a reliable source referring to these incidents as such. Otherwise any editor adding an event here is is making a judgment call about how to classify the event and frankly that becomes an issue of original research.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done. • Freechild'sup? 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. A perusal down the article List of timelines suggests that the word timeline (or chronology) is best used when events are related (e.g., Timeline of same-sex marriage, Timeline of the Enron scandal) whereas unrelated items tend to use the word list (e.g., List of assassinated people, List of historic fires). justinfr (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs new sources

This event June 11-15, 2000, the WPC is utterly incorrect. Some news paper articles from the time should be provided to give the actual numbers. Police estimated ahead of time (note the WPC site is written in the future tense) that 2,000 could be expected. In reality 150 people showed up, marched around a couple times and left. The big incident involved some city worker spraying someone or something with a hose or something of that nature. There were also far more than 1,500 police involved as the recent seattle riot had made them overly concerned. As it is that WPC citation is utterly useless and I'm removing it. It doesn't support any of the text, it simply describes the gear people might wear at the protest.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was 150-200 one day and 1,500 on the Sunday. It is however described by numerous sources as a "peaceful protest" hardly civil unrest or a riot.[1][2]. As such I feel this "Timeline" creates a point of view issue by labeling an event as one thing when it clearly isn't regarded as such.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary. 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/20091017171754/http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/racial/ to http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/racial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323050210/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d80a966a-c835-456a-8021-ed04c1ebedd3&k=5402 to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d80a966a-c835-456a-8021-ed04c1ebedd3&k=5402

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary. 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/20070820041110/http://calgarypubliclibrary.com/calgary/calgarytimeline.htm to http://calgarypubliclibrary.com/calgary/calgarytimeline.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730020915/http://www.explorasian.org/project.html to http://www.explorasian.org/project.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820041110/http://calgarypubliclibrary.com/calgary/calgarytimeline.htm to http://calgarypubliclibrary.com/calgary/calgarytimeline.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)