Jump to content

Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who are these "Southern Ontario Anarchists?

[edit]

70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance or S.O.A.R. Based out of Guelph ON I think. I can't find a web page, but googleing "Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance" turns up a pile of statements, call-outs, etc... Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An external link to a site which mentions SOAR is at the bottom of the page. Is this the best and most appropriate position for this information?
A CBC News article here identified some key groups which were involved in protest planning; and those groups are mentioned here. At the bottom of the CBC article page is an infobox — "What are they fighting for?" There are tabs marked "Interviews," "Facts" and "External links". --Tenmei (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could these vandals be agents of the police?

[edit]

If not directly (i.e agent provocateurs, then indirectly)? The police leave a car or two alone, it gets trashed, lots of pics and videos taken, and the police are justified for their future actions.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three cops were exposed in this video:
Violent Protest or Agent Provocateurs? Toronto G8-G20.
and Police abandon cars at G20 protests amid $1 billion security clampdown205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here is another good example of possible police infiltration into protest groups
Undercover Cops Spotted at G20

Didn't Anarchists riot in Toronto in 1988?

[edit]

I believe that there was this "Anarchist Convention" in Toronto 1988. It went well until the US shot down Iran Air Flight 655, and then they ran through the streets, doing things like kicking in Sun boxes.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are courtrooms open to the public?

[edit]

According to this article, Deaf man arrested in G20 protest gets bail, they might not be.205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queer activists?

[edit]

Vandalism and slurs aren't welcome, if I'm not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.175.126 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few cases where "queer" is used as a neutral or positive descriptor for a group by that group, plus there is the term "LGBTQ", and so unless negative intention can be demonstrated, it is actually a non-negative term, and not a slur or otherwise pejorative. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuse with main 2010 G-20 Toronto article?

[edit]

The protests were a significant aspect of the Toronto G20 summit, therefore shouldn't this article be fused with its parent article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanaute (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to that article's talk page for the split discussion.:-)206.130.173.55 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finch and Weston

[edit]

"charges were to be released soon, serious charges were set to appear in a courthouse in North York"

What courthouse? There are several in North York?206.130.173.55 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interesection where the court house is exactly located is quite unnecessary and dubious information. Specificity of information should pertain to what happened during the protests. Also, refrain from using brackets, things can easily be written in sentences. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2201 Finch ave. W to be exact, for what it's worth Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See alsos?

[edit]

206.130.173.55 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, See also isn't an opportunity to list absolutely every event that happened in Canada and is only for trivial purposes. The links listed at the moment are enough, although maybe the 3rd Summit of the Americas link can suffice. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it helpful to add the following? Alternately, is this unhelpful "clutter"?
Compare
I'm a bit unsure about including the 2009 NATO summit because the protests were so effectively contained as a result of extensive German-French security planning? But that was precisely the point.
When protests in Toronto began to grow violent, I first thought of Genoa. For me, it was helpful to be reminded of Quebec in 2001. --Tenmei (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I removed that from the article. Again, it's not appropriate to list protests all around the world. Maybe if there was a footer template that listed all summit protests that would be pretty appropriate. Otherwise a list of redirecting links isn't so cool. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"classic authoritarian detention" passage.

[edit]

Originally read "Nevertheless some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were present, albeit in embryonic forms.[1]"

The above struck me as POV and cited an editorial piece, rather then a news story, in the Toronto Star, so I removed it. The passage was re-added with the edit summary "not POV; factual state of affairs reported by reputable 3rd party" before being removed again by another editor for POV.

I think the issue here is that Editorials are by their very nature POV, hence cannot be an impartial source. Further, they are opinion pieces, they do not report on anything. They take information from news reports to be commented on.

I believe | this is the editorial that was cited.

would re-wording the passage to something like "a Toronto Star commentator noted in an editorial that "some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms."" be acceptable to everyone? It at least makes it clear that the passage is from an editorial. I'd still lean towards taking it out completely, but if a compromise will prevent a wheel war, I'd go for that too. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, since it indicates the source of the terminology, rather than implying that we came up with that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll plug that in somewhere.Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it - looks great. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken on the editorials. Thanks. (Although as a side note, I think that there is quite a fine line here - i.e. in many cases involving ambiguity, it can be argued that the writing of history itself is based upon an analysis of a set of facts (primary, secondary or tertiary etc.), from which conclusions are drawn by the historian; many if not all of these conclusions/determinations therefore can be said to be POV as well - but that does not mean they should all be dismissed as totally worthless (throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were). In this case here, the Star National Affairs editor Thomas Walcom did list a set of reported facts in writing what he did, and I felt he made a strong case, qualifying his statement well.
In any event, I agree it does looks much better this way. Thanks, and cheers, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Why is "classic authoritarian detention" linked to the page "Internment Camps"? While the quote of the editorial article reference "classic authoritarian detention" seems OK, it doesn't provide any reference to Internment camps (Concentration Camps) so what is the reason to link it? 205.250.225.84 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Abraxas42[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Walcom-STAR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

G20 Timelines

[edit]

Found a couple of timelines on the Toronto Sun site that may be useful. I have them saved to my hard-drive incase the links become inaccessible.

Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more detailed timelines.

Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to put together a bit of a timeline here after I noticed that the ketteling incident at Queen and Spadina was mentioned in both the June 26 and June 27 sections. That incident was on the Sunday correct? anyway, here's a rough timeline I put together that folks should feel free to edit mercilessly until it's correct. I tried to stick to more major events on saturday and sunday: Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday

[edit]
[edit]
  • Labour march leaves Queen's Park, bloc amongst labour march
  • Bloc tries to breakthrough @ Queen & John st.
  • Bloc separates from labour march and confronts police line at Queen @ Spadina
  • Bloc doubles back east on Queen, First windows come down, police forced to abandon cruiser near Queen & Peter, cruiser smashed by crowd
  • Bloc heads south on Bay st. Cruisers burned @ King & Bay
  • Cruiser burns @ Wellington & Bay
  • Bloc reaches Young St. Heads north to College smashing windows along the way
  • Bloc heads west on College back to Queens Park where they re-enter larger crowd, change out of black clothes and disperse into crowd.
  • Police surround Queen's Park. CS used. Mass Arrests

Other Saturday Events

[edit]

(these happened after police surrounded crowd at queens park)

  • Cruiser abandoned earlier @ Queen and Peter burned
  • ?Mass arrests at detention centre?
  • Novatel mass arrests

Sunday

[edit]
  • U of T arrests
  • More detention centre arrests (?possibly 2 incidents?)
  • Kettleing @ Queen and Spadina
A timeline is a great idea actually, similar to that of the London summit protests. But I was thinking chart form would be easier on the eyes instead of a lenghthy list of events. Also yes the Queen/Spadina kettling was a Sunday June 27 event--perhaps the final event of the Toronto summit protests. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The rational for deleting a logo-image has merit; but I wonder if it might not be short-sighted?

  • diff 19:38, 19 August 2010 Eelamstylez77 (43,980 bytes) (→Early opposition: not an official logo of the protests, just fan made)

The specific logo does illustrate a broader point -- that the anti-summit organizers were, in fact, organized in advance. Online research found this specific logo on more than one anti-summit website.

I have restored the deleted image. There may have been more ubiquitous logos. There might be a better choice than the one posted. From my editing point-of-view, any other logo would be equally acceptable. There is an overview objective for the anti-summit logo in this article's well-developed context. Its function is to suggest that a not-inconsequential level of sophisticated pre-planning was part of this "event."

The article's several focal points identify and describe incidents of spontaneous drama -- as it should; but there was another non-dramatic aspect of the demonstrations which has been less well presented in light of the overall scope of the article.

If this is not clear enough, I will try to explain again in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but I'm concerned about its clearing WP:NFCC#8. I just don't see where it has contextual significance in the article as a whole. The article does not discuss the protest movement's logo, and in reading a chunk of the article around it, I can't find any context that it would fit with. Right now, the image in questions appears as decorative fair use, which, as you know, is a no-no. I'm not going to remove it for now, but we may need some more information about the protest group logo(s), and back that up with reliable sources. Otherwise, it needs to go... SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this argument; and this makes it difficult to respond effectively. Please help me understand why this logo is misplaced; and I will agree to remove it, of course. On the other hand, maybe I will be able to mitigate the perceived problems this logo causes. --Tenmei (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, its inclusion or non-inclusion does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" per WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see revised caption here which includes verification by Centre for Globalization Research citation. I want to write as little as possible; but one or two sentences need to state bluntly that
The chronology of spontaneous demonstrations and protest was married to sophisticated pre-planning. and the concerted efforts of several unrelated organizations. --Tenmei (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I applaud your good-faith effort, I still don't believe it passes the non-free image criteria. The problem is that the picture still lacks contextual significance, and also fails WP:NFCC#1, as the information being conveyed by the new caption does not need an image, especially a non-free one, to help with understanding that information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

This article should be included in the Riots and civil unrest in Canada category.24.78.198.224 (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Also, read WP:BOLD. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBC documentary

[edit]

The section about the CBC documentary has been removed twice now, due to lack of third-party sourcing for notability (vs. primary sources), and also on account of undue weight. Here's how it breaks down as I see it:

  1. Items from the documentary might be useful in sourcing neutrally presented facts in the article. Note that I do not refer to discussion of the documentary itself, but facts presented in the article that use the documentary as a source.
  2. The documentary itself might have stand-alone notability if the reliable sources are there, which would mean it would be eligible for an article of its own.

In any case, a large presentation about the documentary itself in this article is off topic, and should be avoided. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Wikipedia has been taken over by a bunch of overzealous editors that are re-writing history in their own ideological views... This feels right out of 1984. Lack of third party sourcing for notability: What is that supposed to mean, something does not exist unless other people have commented on it? That is complete nonsense. The topic of this page is the G20 summit protest, which led to police brutality and the biggest mass arrest in Canadian history. This documentary is strictly on that subject: how can you say that including a section on it in this article is off-topic.
Here is how it breaks down as I see it:
  1. This documentary exists in of itself and does not require third party sources to attest to it's notability. If you bothered to look up the producer, CBC, you would find that it is the Canadian equivalent of the BBC. How more notable can you get? This is not some harebrained, home-made documentary on youtube; this is a produced segment of a 25 year old television show on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation;
  2. This documentary does not warrant it's own page, but as it is absolutely relevant to the issues of the G20 Protest, because that is what it is about, it should remain on this page.
  3. This documentary brings to light issues regarding the police response to the protests of the Toronto G20 summit; How can you say that it is off-topic on this article, which is about the Toronto G20 protest.
Instead of arbitrarily removing this section, can you please be constructive and suggest precisely how it can be incorporated into Wikipedia so this true, factual, pertinent and verifiable information can be made accessible to the public? astragale (Talk) astragale 12:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already did, see my point #1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Documentary is worth mentioning in this article because the documentary directly deals with this subject. It is sort of part of the aftermath effect of the protests. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto judge: physical aggression perpetrated by police only

[edit]

“The only organized or collective physical aggression at that location that evening was perpetrated by police each time they advanced on demonstrators...”

Rename

[edit]

The current title is rather obtuse... Would any of these work better for anyone?

  • Toronto G-20 protests
  • Toronto G-20 summit protests
  • 2010 G-20 protests

My preference is by far the first. Any objections to such a move? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty much an extension of 2010 G-20 Toronto summit so it's current name makes more sense. Besides, the 2009 G-20 London summit protests article follows a similar naming convention. EelamStyleZ talk 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 G-20 Toronto summit 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-20 major economies which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 G20 Toronto summit protests. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Mark Fenton section

[edit]

There has been an update to the Mark Fenton story, if someone is interested in adding it. :) — TARDIS builder💬   /     02:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_G20_Toronto_summit_protests&oldid=1196566890"