Talk:Unistʼotʼen Camp

Neutrality
While this topic has received some national media coverage, it appears to have been written by authors close to the subject, if not within the camp itself. I would suggest that editors pay close attention to the language and be wary of emotive language that may suggest or impel people to a certain direction while reading the article. Notes and information should be descriptive in nature. Some sections may not be notable and rather are inserted into the article, again by supporters, for their own gain. Neutrality is important, no matter how noble a cause may be.  Krazytea  (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the main points have been cleaned up. The checkpoint section, though, remains. Not sure how to organize/title it for neutrality concerns. I think we need to make clear it is the underlying issue/principles but I think we have to attribute it to authorities through secondary sources, not the primary sources? Alaney2k (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot better, thank you. I would be comfortable removing the neutrality banner.  Krazytea  (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There's still a significant problem of balance in the article.  For starters, unistoten.camp is from the subject of the article, and is therefore inherently non-neutral. The article takes a clear position on a the dispute, by referring to the "intrusion" of RCMP.  According to dictionary.com intrusion in law is defined as "an illegal act of entering, seizing, or taking possession of another's property."  Even if many sources, including reliable sources, including lawyers, would argue the RCMP are in fact "intruding", there certainly is not a consensus to say that.  So, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia, to say in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution, that the RCMP are "intruding".  Something contentious like this, needs a citation, and in-line attribution.  Even when we cover opinions, we should try to cover those of reliable sources, or of those covered by reliable sources.  We shouldn't be citing an on-line petition as a source (if it's covered by third-party reliable sources, then it can be mentioned).  The POV is best left on, until more editors get involved, and can improve the article.  I'm not yet well-read enough on the topic to substantially edit the article myself . --Rob (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I originally wrote this article. I will add the necessary citations.I added reliable sources. I will add more. Smallison (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

unistoten.camp
We should not be using http://unistoten.camp/ as a sole source for any significant or contentious facts, as it is published (presumably) by the subject of the article. There's other questionable sources in the article, but this is a pretty obviously biased one. There's an ample supply of reliable sources (aptn, cbc, etc...) available. --Rob (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with 'land defender'
Seems pretty clear to me they are acting as land defenders, like those in South America. What is the objection? Alaney2k (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)