Talk:Theresa Spence

POV dispute - Idle No More and hunger strike

The section Theresa Spence#Idle No More and hunger strike has been tagged as a NPOV issue with the concern "Written without any opposing criticism. Missing the offers made by government to meet. Uses poor sources." Anyone have thoughts on this? Zujua (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The content is sourced and NPOV. Of course the "subject" of the article has a POV, but the text is written to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V standards. I am unaware of any criticism except by the IP vandals attacking this article. If there is any legitimate, published criticism that can be sourced to WP standards, it should be put in a new, "criticism" section. The other reason that section does not exist is this stub was only created very recently. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, as the IP SPA simply did a tag and run, and did not bother to even voice what the specific concerns are, I think it would be valid to remove the flag unless and until someone with the courage to voice their concerns engages here on the talk page. :) - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Theresa Spence is clearly notable. There are articles on indigenous leaders who have garnered far less interest. Everything is sourced and neutral. Indigenous girl (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, not a wikipedia editor, but I have added some context and sources in an attempt to provide some balance and facts to the article, which should be deleted and is extremely one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. It does not mean we provide equal balance to all viewpoints on a topic. It certainly doesn't justify misrepresentation of sources, removal of relevant material without an explanation, nor adding off topic material. --Ronz (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This person is not notable

Ms. Spence is not notable enough for her own page. The article also appears to be more about a protest called idle no more. Either way I'm adding the AFD tag an nominating for deletion. This info can be included on other articles on wiki 108.172.114.141 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A cabinet minister, Canada's Minister of Health spoke out on the hunger strike, received Globe and Mail front page coverage [1]; National Post is giving it front page coverage too [2]. Since it's become a prominent federal political issue and national news topic, the hunger strike makes the subject notable. Why is the link on the article page, to the AfD discussion, red?OttawaAC (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The link to the proposed AfD is red because it is a drive-by tagging by an IP SPA whose only edits are to rewrite sourced content, which is veering into vandalism. As the AfD was never started, and there is no page for it, I am removing the flag. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith Kathryn. I'm sensing some ownership issues with the article but I'll instead give you the benifit of the doubt that maybe you legitimately thought this was a vandals account. Its actually not an account, hence the IP address. I added the afd because per wiki guidlines she is notable only for a single issue. Further to that this info isn't so much about a BLP (Spence) is it is about the Idle No More protest and the Attiwapiskat housing crisis. The reason the afd discussion is blank is because after adding the tag wiki wouldnt allow an ip editor to create the page. I had been hopefull that in the spirit of wikipedia another named editor would instead create the discussin page which I would ask eother of you to do now instead of avoiding the legitimate discussion on the topic. Thanks in advance 108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr or Ms 108, AGF does not mean ignore the behaviour of someone who is disrupting the 'pedia. You have now been warned by three different editors about inserting attacks into BLPs and substituting defamatory content in contradiction of the sources. You are not demonstrating good faith with your edits, so it would be naive of editors here to assume that on your part. I don't wish you any ill will; just letting you know that a pattern is visible in your edits. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

review my edits, I dont add defammatory content I remove unreliable sources (the issue months ago was with gossip sites/mags being used on what are really just fn page BlP's). Please see note on my talk page clarifying the ip range you accuse me of sock puppeting from. This article is a BLP and as such sources are held to a higher standard especially when dealing with controvertial issues. Besides all that this really should be a afd discussion as she is notable only for one issue (the housing crisis) but is now pushing that under a broader banner (Idle No More and opposition to bill c-35). The page as it exists contains little if any biographical information outside this recentism discussion and as such I believe it should be deleted and the nfo incorporated in to other pages (such as the Hunger Strike page, the Atttiwapiskat page, the Idle No More page, etc.) 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious 108, please don't fib. You added phrases of oppression to the article. That's not nice. I hope you were not trying to be racist. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

you both need to read IP Adress . I am not /108.170.148.125. There are millions of users within this range. I have made No additions to either this or the hunger strike page other than the afd on this page 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I would say you are hoping we don't know about dynamic IPs or similar sock maneuvers. As I said on your talk page, if you don't want to be penalized for other edits from this IP, create an account. You just admitted diff that you have an account and are editing logged out. Why? Your edits from the IPs count as edits from your account. If you are editing logged out to avoid accountablity, this is a form of sockpuppetting. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So, "108", as you know I prefer to keep conversations in one place. (I apologize to Wikipedians for having a discussion about sockpuppet policies here, but as the user has responded on multiple different talk pages...) I left you a message at IP 108.170.148.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and you responded to me about your actions from that IP... while posting from IP 108.172.114.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) diff. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person without an account from 108... The content in the article is highly politicized and factually incorrect. She is not on a "hunger diet"; she is on a non-solid-food, soup diet, as several sourced articles describe. Ms. Spence is only notable for this one incident, and thus does it is inappropriate to write this article to support her political efforts, as per wikipedia guidelines. No opposing political viewpoints are presented in the article. No criticism of Ms. Spence or the fact that with the passing of the bill she would be forced to reveal more of the accounting for the $1.2 million/year her band council receives for administering a small reserve. The article should not be on wikipedia, and as it is, it is one-sided and factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, reading this page, it seems that I am not the only person with concerns about this article's bias. Could another, disinterested mod please take a look at the issues here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

108.170.148.125 Perhaps you could source a "criticism" "section". What you added was unsourced, defamatory content and racially provocative language. You may also want to do some research. Chiefs of Nations just are as notable as leaders of other nations. I'd also suggest that individuals posting from similar or identical IPs create or log in to existing accounts to avoid further confusion.Indigenous girl (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you consider "defamatory content" or "racially provocative language." Please be more specific, and do not simply delete factual additions and sources that do not conform to your political world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. That's not the way things work here when it comes to biographical information on living people. Misrepresenting a hunger strike as something else is inappropriate. You sourced it with an article that repeatedly characterizes her strike as a "hunger strike." --Ronz (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, and is this the reason you deleted the sourced criticism of Spence: she accepted $90-million in aid from the federal government, yet years later the reserve is in the same desperate situation; she hired her common-law husband to co-manage the band; and importantly, she is protesting legislation that would force her as chief to reveal details on how much she is paid, her partner is paid, and what happened to the $90-million? The article as it stands is obviously extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the status of editorials by Christie Blatchford in the National Post have when it comes to WP:BLP. WP:RSN is the venue for getting help on such matters. Given how the source itself conflates information, and how the proposed content presents information out of context and in a manner that implies problems where there may be none, I felt it best to keep it out along with the outright misrepresentations of sources per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in here and hoping I am doing it in the correct format. I came to the Theresa Spence page because I wanted to remind myself of some facts about her. I was able to find a little of what I wanted so I do think there is merit in the page itself. She is a person who has been in the news for more than a year. Just because it is not big time news for most of the world does not make her less worthy of an encyclopedia entry in a source many Canadians do go to. That being said I think the page itself needs some serious clean up. Some of my suggestions are:

• Section on the housing crisis should go first and needs more details. The current entry there is not what I would call objective or neutral.
• The quote "She has become a national symbol and has bravely highlighted the gross public policy extremes of the Harper government and has deservedly shamed them nationally and internationally." while sourced is simply the opinion of the source and not neutral fact. Possible change would be to say that some feel she is a national symbol of ... while others feel ...
• I think it is fair to call her actions a "hunger strike" as the wiki page on hunger strikes makes it clear that most do take liquids. But the exact nature of her hunger strike could be clarified in the article.
• the quote on bill c-45 " "Bill C-45 includes changes to the Canadian Indian Act regarding how Reserve lands are managed, making them easier to develop and be taken away from the First Nation people; the bill also removes thousands of lakes and streams from the list of federally protected bodies of water." is only a portion of what is in the bill. As this is not an article about Bill c-45 it does not seem appropriate to have a discussion of it on this page. What would be pertinent I think is what Theresa Spence feels about the bill and why it has prompted her to start the hunger strike. Jemmaca (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions. Aside from her status as chief being notable, she's gaining international recognition for her actions relating to her hunger strike and that's only going to continue, I don't see her notability being an issue here. It seems absurd that people here are trying to argue about whether or not she's on a hunger strike when the Wikipedia page on hunger strikes itself clearly states that many take liquids, in the opening paragraph of the article! What she's doing is also clearly recognised and being reported on as being a hunger strike, too.

I think putting the housing crisis section first makes sense, giving a chronological order to her actions to date, and fleshing it out would help give more balance over all. Also agreed on the quote regarding her bravery - it doesn't really add any new information to the article as a whole and doesn't really gel with the rest of the paragraph. A better quote would perhaps be from Chief Spence herself, stating her opinion of the Bill. Ririgidi (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion tag

Is this discussion closed? To me, it seems that she is a notable person, even outside of the recent Idle No More events, as a chief of a native nation, that makes her alone a notable person. Now that she is on the cover of many major newspapers, it is hard to argue that she is not notable. I can hear the criticisms about the term hunger strike, however, they hold little weight. A hunger strike does include eating liquids, but not solid food. I'm inclined to remove the deletion tag, unless further arguments can be clarified as to why it is a candidate for deletion. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just spent some time reading through the BLP guidelines. While I would personally like to see a good page on Theresa Spence this current page is lacking in biographical information and a neutral tone. Additionally the page lacks much information on the housing crisis and Theresa Spences's role in it. So my opinion is that it fails to meet the guidelines for a biography of a living person. There are pages on both "Idle no more" and "Attawapiskat First Nation" that contains all the information found on the current Theresa Spence page. So unless it can be cleaned up and fleshed out I regrettably think it ought to be deleted Jemmaca (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

She seems to meet WP:BIO multiple times over. I don't see any problems that can't be resolved with normal editing. Could someone point them out if they exist please? --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did argue that I thought she was notable enough. That being said here are my specific issues with the page existing (as opposed to editorial issues). Sorry it is lengthy.

With regards to the process of "normal editing" I quote from WP:BLP "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies."

Reading WP:BLP1E it seems to me that all three of the conditions are met for avoiding having an article.

• the section on the housing crisis is not covered enough, or with enough verifiable sources to turn this into a second event
• Theresa Spence is likely to remain a low profile person over the course of time. And if that changes a page can be created in the fullness of time.
• The level of significance of the current event can not accurately be judged nor can we predict exactly how significant a role she will have played once things unfold in their entirety.

also in WP:BIO1E we have "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Not sure we are at that threshold. Despite having argued in favour of having this page in my prior note.

see also WP:RECENTISM I think that many of the issues described in the article are present in the current Theresa Spence article. As such the recentism tag included on the page is appropriate and the article really may be better placed on wikinews.

my editorial concerns I mostly listed before. But the fact the article lacks very basic biographical information and is almost entirely about current events is the part that pushes it into the category of merging into the pages on the events or to wikinews. Jemmaca (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Individual easily passes notability criteria. Current chief of a First nations community alone would do it. I mean, we have articles on obscure state legislators and even fringe candidates. This person clearly is a political figure of sufficient notability. Comments added about opponents view. So, as a previously uninvolved editor, I have to say that this is a dead issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to misrepresent her hunger strike

The first time around it was an outright misrepresentation of sources ([3] and subsequent edits from 108.172.114.141 (talk · contribs) and 108.170.148.125 (talk · contribs)).

Now it's undue weight if the other problems with the addition were addressed: The addition didn't actually contain proper sources for the material, it used scare quotes, it discusses the hunger strike as a "liquid diet," and goes off on a tangent describing broth with a questionable if not unreliable source.--Ronz (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

in an attempt to find a neutral middle ground I have made a small edit to the first sentence in the hunger strike section. I broke the sentence into two parts. Used the existing source and outlined the nature of the type of hunger strike it is. Then in the new second sentence referred to this as a hunger strike. I added none of the type of edits that were describing it as a diet/liquid diet as I agree with Ronz's statements above that these are misleading and questionably sourced. I think it is neutral to indicate which type of hunger strike it is but that it is disingenuous to call it anything other than a hunger strike. I dislike the paragraph as a whole but I hope this one little change can at least fix one point of contention and stop the repeated removal of the term hunger strike. Jemmaca (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I hope this is settled and we can move on to the larger problems with the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Until there is a validly citable journalistic article to clarify the vague term 'fish' broth, I suggest the term 'fish'-based protein diet be substituted. Depending on traditional foodstuffs, A protein regimen is not necessarily a 'hunger' strike until her supplies of body fat are running low, and even then, we don't know if this 'fish broth' includes fish-fat as well. On a low/no carbohydrate diet, the body switches over to protein —> glucose metabolism.

Frankly I think journalists have done a shoddy job on the question of just what she is/is not 'eating', probably so as not to step on ethnic sensitivities.

I'm grateful the editors have enough sense to avoid the term 'fast', which really should be nailed down to zero carb, fat, protein, solid or liquid.JohndanR (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just another attempt to misrepresent the strike. No sources bring up such concerns, so we shouldn't either. Please don't waste our time here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty: "...misrepresent the strike". With the absence of the debatable adjective between the article and the noun, we are converging on a solution. For my part I fully support legitimate protest, not excluding actual fasting. For the cost of a single F-35, some one hundred full K-12 Native language programs could completely roll back the destructive erosion of English on aboriginal languages, the true matrix of Native culture. But that's just my gratuitous talk-contribution, and you're welcome to delete both of them.JohndanR (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up this coatrack

This article is about Spence, not the Attawapiskat#Housing_and_infrastructure_crisis and not Idle No More. Yet the information about these two subjects dwarfs that about Spence.

I propose trimming both sections down to extremely brief summaries of the topics, and keep and expand, if possible, information about Spence and her involvement with them.

I also found and added a source that contains some personal information that we could add about her family.

Granted, even if we clean up the coatracking, the article is going to have other WP:NPOV/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER problems because of the sources available. Hopefully we can find some biographies on her, rather than just news reports. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tried looking for biographical info about her, and it's very hard to come by. The Globe Galloway article that is currently source 1 is about all that I've seen. As far as the coat racking goes, I think the current info on the reserve's housing crisis, and the hunger strike could be truncated (especially since there's already an article on the Attawapiskat housing and infrastructure crisis -- maybe move and merge some of the info there). But, those are national news stories, and that's what she's known for -- it's an odd case, a famous person in Canada, and it's tough to find anything info about her outside these aforementioned, highly publicized situations. OttawaAC (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Hopefully all the interest in her will be enough for some reporter to write a short biography... --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Will leave the Hunger strike section alone for now...if there's anything to update, maybe I'll look at truncating it later.OttawaAC (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't have anything directly to do with Spence as pointed out in independent sources, it simply doesn't belong here. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Doted throughout this article, there are numerous references to people other than Spence.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's clean up the coatracking that's going on. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, so why did you only edit my text re other people while leaving other references in tact?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. If you see specific problems, solve them or bring them up here. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Attawapiskat population

I had a pop figure from the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Website. This was removed with the accusation of "coatracking" and failing to cite an independent source. I have now added a population figure based on the most recent census citing the National Post. Can anyone give me a sensible reason why this information should be excluded from the Spence bio? Is this information a evidence of some kind of insidious political bias, or is it simply information you would find useful in a BLP of a community leader? Thoughts? OttawaAC (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree, there is definately political bias at play with this article. I have been threatened with being blocked because I posted the FACT that Spence's common law husband, Clayton Kennedy, was paid $850 per day to co-manage the Attawapiskat Band Council.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not about Spence, and neither is far too much of this article. Provide an independent source that demonstrates is is important to Spence, otherwise it is coatracking. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence is currently, and for the foreseeable future, a major political figure in Canada. Spence by her own doing is no longer just a private citizen and is therefore open to heightened public scrutiny, especially when it comes to matters where the public funds are involved--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So anything you personally feel is relevant is worth mention? --Ronz (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't threaten Syncmaster over the content of his edits, I gave him a 3RR warning - very very different. He disagrees that he made 3 reverts. He's raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring at my suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a patern by a select group of editors to censor any critical info regarding spence or her cause by immediately reverting than harrasing those who attempted to balance the article with commentary from both sides. Accusations and threats have been on going by this group of editors and it needs to stop. If any info is well cited by reliable srouces it should be included. Period. And additionally, some of the fring sources being used by Spence's supporters needs further analysis to determine if they are in fact RS. 96.49.237.199 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. Writing a good article isn't about pasting together every last thing possibly related to a topic into one page. Policies like WP:UNDUE ask us to balance information. This article is a mess because of approaches like yours suggested above. It's meant to be a biography of a person, not a news/opinion aggregator. The Interior (Talk) 17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we want to make sure that only notable information is presented in a neutral and objective way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree you did not threaten a block because of my content, but the end result is the same as content blocking--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. If you can't follow the rules for editwarring and consensus building you get blocked. Someone else who can follow the rules can insert the material.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Financial Audit of Attawapiskat by Government of Canada

A recent audit by the Government of Canada into the finances of Attawapiskat First Nation is severety critical of Chief Theresa Spence Federal government audit severely critical of attawapiskat chief theresa spence--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This should probably be worked in to the article in a Non-POV way. Might be worth while allowing a day or two for reliable sources to report on the developement before including in the article. 96.49.237.199 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources e.g. Government of Canada and several mainstream news sites have already reported on this item--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Star article didn't bother to indicate where they got the quote from that they used in the article title, nor is it clear in the source, so I removed it per WP:BLP. The other source doesn't say anything similar. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence's youngest daughter joined strike?

I'm unable to verify any information in the paragraph. Did someone copy the wrong sources perhaps, or am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence's youngest daughter, who is 13, had joined her in her hunger strike. This development was criticized by Chief Rose Laboucan of the Driftpile Cree Nation, who expressed concern that she did not want to see youth "follow in her footsteps".

Let's take care with the sensationalism

Per WP:W2W and WP:NPOV, let's take care how we present information from these newspaper articles, which tend to sensationalize the situations. I've removed "On January 7, 2013 several Canadian news outlets including the CBC and the Toronto Star revealed that a Financial Audit " and "On January 6, 2013, it was revealed by CTV news on the television program Question Period that" --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be vague, exactly which W2W are you referring to?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words and editorializing. For example "it was revealed" subtly suggests that it is a truth that someone has tried to hide, while in fact it is simply an allegation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

Please read and follow the policy Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY about the limits on usage of primary sources in biographies of living persons. I am considering whether the article should be protected given the large amount of probelmatic edits being made without prior discussion or concensus to this BLP.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would consider the Government of Canada as the primary source and the auditors, Deloite, as the secondary source or possibly vice versa, either way there are two sources--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They're both primary sources. A secondary source would be, for example, a Maclean's feature on the issue. As this report was very recently issued, it's wise to wait for some solid secondary analysis before we include much about it. The Interior (Talk) 20:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are both primary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So how about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, would you consider the CBC to be a reliable second source?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeking advice on how to propose Theresa Spence article for deletion

I am seeking advice on how to propose the Theresa Spence article for deletion, please advise the most expedient way to achieve this--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)