Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lance6968 comments moved from main article to talk page

First part

Truthful criticism of the race-based and antisemitic "Quebecoise" identity is not "Quebec Bashing." Such an entry in WIKIPEDIA undermines the integrity of this Web site; and, therefore should be deleted. "Quebec natioanalism" should be discussed in an entry on antisemitism and racism.

--Lance6968 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To write opinions on a main page and to begin by a suggestive attack is hardly the constructive spirit expected on Wikipedia, the one that maintains this integrity. I will from this point invite you to a courteous and productive discussion. This article deals with alleged defamation in the media and its common appelation, "Quebec bashing". The article may not be perfect, but it strives to stress that such writings are cited as examples, rather than judge its nature; it states that a substantial number of people describe it as "Quebec bashing" (always in quotation marks) or "racism" (with reference) and therein lies the difference. The reader will draw their own conclusions. This is the standard your comments do not meet as your argumentation rests on the affirmation that it is "trutful criticism", a subjective estimation. The article can surely still be improved; this is a new article and its expansion is even more recent, but its spirit is not antinomic with Wikipedia. --Liberlogos 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Lance6968 insists that Quebecois society (to which I belonged) is race based. Bloc québécois leader Gilles Duceppe is half-English, journalist Normand Lester (who published three books on Quebec Bashing) is half Romanian Jew, former independentist Premier Lucien Bouchard married an American, former independentist premier Jacques Parizeau married a Pole, former independentis Premier Pierre-Marc Johnson is part Irish, Canada's first elected Latino Osvaldo Nunez was a Quebecois independentist, currently, Quebec Premier Jean Charest is half Irish, there is an elected independentist MP who was born in West Africa, former independentist MNA Joseph Facal was born in Uruguay, I am half Armenian myself, my Québécois grandfather was part Algonquian, I grew up with Haitians, Romanians, Latinos, Italians, Lebanese, etc. in East End Montreal. Only 69% of Montreal's population speaks French as a Native language (including myself), and the government of Quebec generously subsidizes the Armenian elementary school I attended as a child, to learn my father's language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.127 (talk • contribs)

This unsigned statement commits a fallacy of relevance and doesn't appear to understand that it is a non sequitur. It is not my point to give a lecture in logic and reasoning, but I will point out that this statement commits an inductive fallacy whereby the inductive probability of the purported argument is nil. It is what is called a "hasty generalization," which means fallaciously inferring a conclusion about an entire class of things, (from inadequate knowledge), from some of the class' members. This comment uses a fallacious statistical or inductive generalization; and draws an invalid inference from observed to unobserved data. The mere fact that persons in the race-based, French-supremicist, "Quebecoise" society are identified by religion, ethnicity, nationality, or skin color, is, a fortiori, evidence that "Quebec bashing" is entirely justified in that it condemns an ideology of hate that has its roots in 19th Century Christian/European racism. It is not an accident that antisemitism is rife in Quebec province; Quebec "nationalism" is a product of 19th Century Christian/European racism that was invented to reverse the civil and political rights of Jews in Europe; that were granted after the European Enlightenment. It is important to note that the term "antisemitism" is a problamatic term in that there is no such thing as "Semitism,": a linguistic term taken from the Hebrew Bible denoting the Sons of Shem. The term was coined in Germany in the 19th Century to advocate hatred of Jews based on the then new "science of race" in contradistinction to religious premises. The above reference to "half Romanian Jew" is taken from race theory; that was an important part of Nazism, (the Nazi movement was universally supported by the French Canadians just as they now support the current manifestation of Nazism in our own time: Hamass, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolla, Al Quaeda, Fatah, etc.).

--Lance6968 17:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You use and abuse the blanks of normal argumentation and common discourse to fill them in with falsehoods and thereafter refute and lambast the now distorted, reconstructed arguments. An exposition of exhaustion must be made so you do not manipulate the commonly understood superfluity. The case made by User:67.68.175.127 is the following.

• GIVEN THAT the accusation is of wide racism in French-speaking Quebec and its elite and leaders.
• GIVEN THAT the nationalist movement is particularily pointed in the prior assertion.
• GIVEN THAT the elite and leaders chosen and/or valued by a said body indicates in all probability acceptance and tolerance.
• GIVEN THAT the disproval of the accusations is dismissed because they are made be people accused of being part of the racist group, therefor biased.
• GIVEN THAT "racism" is notably defined as being hostile to other, different races.
• GIVEN THAT union with a significant other is one of the most intimate relations between human beings and that it, in all probability, indicates love, acceptance, tolerance of the other.
  • IT IS ARGUED THAT a wide number of those accused, those issuing rebuttal, those leaders, those of the elite, are of other races than the one accused of racism, of a minority, or have married other races.
  • THIS ENTAILS THAT it not, by definition, possible for them to be racist against themselves, which would be antinomic.
  • THIS ENTAILS THAT those being racist in a union with a significant other of a different race is antinomic and dubious.
• BY CONCLUSION there is not, in all probability, a wide phenomenon of racism in Quebec.

From a mention of ethnicities, notably "half Romanian Jew", you jump to a direct link with National Socialist theory. The leap of logic you commit is ignoble and ignominious. I am reminded of a usual number from television show The Colbert Report. In it, Stephen Colbert, playing a closed-minded right-winger that will use dubious logic to prove his assertions, claims he "does not see colour", "does not see race". Point-blank with people of colour, he will claim that he does not know if his interlocutor is black, and that he does not even know his own race, saying "people tell him" he's white. This routine shows the ridicule of trying to crush the notion of ethnicity, and then vilify those who acknowledge it. Such a behaviour is counter-productive to tolerance. It fights ignorance with more ignorance. Seeing that you shoot down the enumeration of around ten factual examples as basis, while you defend your own argument with two false examples here, you are the individual making hasty generalization from inadequate knowledge. It is people like you that hold the "ethnic obsession". I have read on this page more references to race than in all French Quebec media this year. --Liberlogos 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to have a calm discussion about the concept of Quebec Bashing, but Lance6968 just likes to keep repeating "race-based" and "French-supremist". Liberlogos answers most of Lanc6968's statements logically, in my opinion.

65.92.218.65 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)the newcommer known as 67.68.175.127

The sarcasm herein-above, and patent ignorance of the origins and ideology of racism, indicated by the language used, shows that this discussion has deteriorated beyond reasonable reply. I suggest you spend more time reading about the historical development of racism, its methods and aims, rather than watching silly television shows, before purporting to write encyclopedia articles.

--Lance6968 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Second part

COUNTER EXAMPLE: Re: "French-speaking Université de Montréal welcomed them [i.e., Jews]"

“ONE OF THE MOST BIZARRE STRIKES IN CANADIAN HISTORY”

The French-speaking Université de Montréal (hereafter, U of M), had an official policy of restriction against Jews in this French-Catholic intitution.

There was not a total exclusion of Jewish people, however, but the small numbers of Jews that did attend U of M were subjected to harsh and intense harassment.

On March 13, 1929, for example, l’Association générale de l’Université de Montreal, (AGEUM), gave the rector of this university a petition demanding the expulsion of all Jews from the University. (See: Pierre Anctil, “Interlude of Hostility: Judeo-Christian Relations in Quebec in the Interwar Period, 1919-1939.” In: Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation. Edited by Alan Davies, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1992, p. 147, from an author who is an apologist for French Quebec antisemitism.).

In June 1934, there occurred what historian Irving Abella has called, “one of the most bizarre strikes in Canadian history.” (See: Irving Abella, A Coat of Many Colours: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada. Toronto, Canada, Lester & Dennys ltd., 1990, p. 179.) Dr. Samuel Rabinovitch was both fluent in the French language and a recent graduate of the U of M Faculty of Medicine; with the highest grades in his graduating class. Dr. Rabinovitch was offered, in June 1934, an internship at Hôpital Notre-Dame, a French-Catholic hospital associated with U of M. When Dr. Rabinovitch, a Jew, began work at Hôpital Notre-Dame all of the other French-Catholic interns went on strike to protest having to work with a Jew. The French-Catholic interns picketed outside the hospital; refusing to even accept emergency cases. The anti-Jewish strike received favorable front page coverage by major French-language newspapers such as Le Devoir (Ibid.). When the French-Catholic interns began to lose some of their of their initial enthusiasm, and were considering whether or not to continue with the strike, “five other Catholic hospitals joined the strike.” (See: Lita-Rose Betcherman, The Swastika and the Maple Leaf: Fascist Movements in Canada in the Thirties, Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1975, pp. 39-40.) Following this expanded walkout, the nursing staff of all of the hospitals involved also threatened to strike if a Jewish doctor would be allowed to work in a French hospital (Ibid., p.40). Within three days Dr. Rabinovitch was forced to resign (See: Pierre Anctil, op. cit., pp. 147-148.)

--Lance6968 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Documents relating to what is identified as the "Interns Strike" can be found at:

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/QuebecHistory/docs/jews/index.htm

Was there racism and antisemiticism in Quebec in the 1920s and the 1930s? You bet. But, the point is that there was just as much (if not more) in English Canada, and it is just as unfair to label modern post-Quiet-Revolution Quebec as racist or antisemitic because of events that happened almost a century ago, than it would be to do the same of English Canada. By the way, Lance6968, Jackie Robinson was a hero among French-Canadians when he played for our city in 1946... Considering how long segregation against African Americans continued in the USA, I think it's not too bad for the so-called "bigot" Quebecois society, don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.127 (talk • contribs)

Re: "But, the point is that there was just as much (if not more) in English Canada"

Again, another fallacy of relevance. This time it is the formal fallacy referred to as Tu quoque, (or, "you too"), arguments. Such arguments attempt to refute a claim by attacking its proponent, (in this case the mythological "English Canada"), on the grounds that he or she is a hypocrit, upholds a double standard of conduct, or is selective, and, therefore, inconsistent in enforcing a principle. The implication is that the arguer is unqualified to make the claim; and hence, there is no reason to take the claim seriously.

The fallacy regarding arguing from a single instance, (e.g., "Jackie Robinson was a hero among French-Canadians," was dealt with above in my comment on uses of a fallacious statistical or inductive generalization.

And, with respect to the "America Bashing," a very real phenomenon in contradistinction to the bogus "Quebec bashing," America has set the example for the rights of the individual and America has openly admitted its past faults with respect to racism against Blacks. The same cannot be said for the racist French Canadians who, instead of trying to reform, create phoney accusations called "Quebec bashing."

--Lance6968 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Once again, the argumentation will have to be fed by the spoon not to permit manipulation. The arguments are the following.

1. First.

• GIVEN THAT the accusation maintains that 1920s and 1930s Quebec was a society more antisemite than others, notably English Canada, with a level that is uncommon, exceptional.
  • IT IS ARGUED THAT Quebec did have racism and antisemitism in the 1920s and 1930s.
  • IT IS COUNTERACTED BY the observation that other societies, notably said English Canada and the United States of America, in the same continent and sphere of mutual influence, had more or equal racism and antisemitism.
• BY CONCLUSION 1920s and 1930s Quebec did not harbour a level of racism or antisemitism that could be deemed uncommon, exceptional.

2. Second

• GIVEN THAT many accusations of racism and antisemitism pertaining to modern Quebec are supported on the alleged racism of past Quebec.
• GIVEN THAT a past condition is not directly, solely indicative of present condition; claiming the contrary is a fallacy.
  • IT IS ARGUED THAT racism and antisemitism was limited but existent in the past.
  • IT IS ARGUED THAT racism and antisemitism have considerably droped since, leading to modern Quebec.
• BY CONCLUSION it is unjust and fallacious to support claims about racism and antisemitism in modern Quebec by observations of past, different era Quebec.

You have furthermore, once again, manipulated the user's affirmations on the United States, to better refute them afterwards. You make their observations of facts into Anti-American sentiment. Acknowledging segregation is not grounds for accusations of xenophobia or general phobia, on the contrary; it is by noticing a problem that one fixes it. As with race here, you make acknowledgment equate to hate, a false equation. --Liberlogos 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Another counter-point to the above unsigned comment in respect of "to label modern post-Quiet-Revolution Quebec as racist or antisemitic because of events that happened almost a century ago" is absurd. On a personal note, I experience antisemitism and rascism whenever I encounter French Canadians; and I was born in, and have lived my entire life in, Montreal.

--Lance6968 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot disprove claims that pertain to personal experience, as I have not witnessed it. You have however here given reasonable reason to doubt your judgement and neutrality. I will point out that you are the one that uses a term related to ethnicity, the deprecated "French Canadian" (as many other with the same accusations do), while those you vilify use the citizen-based "Quebecer". --Liberlogos 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a contest; and your argumentation is unconvincing. It is suffused with presumption; without reference to fact or logic: devoid of knowledge; and heavy on pap. Roman Catholic ideology (belief) is obsessed with "Jews," as it sees them; not real flesh and blood Jewish people, though. Given the peasant ("habitant") origins of most French Canadians, they were easily susceptible to anti-Jewish propaganda that was taught by the all powerful Judeophobic Quebec Catholic church (that incidentally collaborated with Nazi proponent Adrien Arcand well into the 1950s—even after Auschwitz). After many French Canadians in the 1960s rejected the control of the Catholic church in Quebec politics, social welfare, and other institutions, (that were then taken over by the secular "catholic" Quebec government), bigotry against real Jews was retained—even by those French Canadians who had never met a real-life Jewish person. Antisemitism never disappeared; it just went from religious demonization to secular racism. Just as the French Canadians retain the Christological symbolism in a purportedly secular government, (note the crucifix in the "national assembly"), so too have they retained the hatred taught to them by their Judeophobic church, that, together with the French language, is the basis of their purported "national" identity.

--Lance6968 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I too have experienced racism (or prejudices, or whatever) in Montreal, but guess what, I have also experienced it during the five years I lived in the USA, and during the two years I lived in another province... I sincerely doubt that you experience racism 'whenever you encounter French Canadians'... but then again, if as soon as you open your mouth, you tell them you think they are racist supremist bigots, I'm not surprised they haven't been kind to you either. 65.92.218.65 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)newcommer

This comment is just more presumption unworthy of a reply.

--Lance6968 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Third part

There exist other counter-examples for every other alledged allegation of "Quebec Bashing" referred to herein. It seems, any criticism of the race-based French "Quebecoise" society will be dismissed as "Quebec Bashing." "Quebec Bashing" is entirely an artificial construct to defend an antisemitic French-supremicist ideology that exists in this part of Canada.

--Lance6968 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is our job to give the information appropriate for readers to come to their own conclusions. With this, and if what you say is legitimate, these conclusions will be theirs for a certain part. --Liberlogos 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I defy you to find one single modern quote (post 1960s) from a member of Quebec society that implies we have a supremist ideology that wasn't widely denounced by the other members of the society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.127 (talk • contribs)

The challenge "to find one single modern quote (post 1960s)," is not difficult to find; more important, however, are actions. Two Jewish schools fire bombed in the last two years, numerous assaults, (both verbal and physical), against Jews, Synagogue desecrations, Jewish cemetary desecreations, failing to recognize the Jewish community's contributions: Jewish cultural contributions, Jewish economic contributions, (N.B. it was Jews and Scottish Presbyterians who first developed the Montreal economy), and Jewish institutions, in any demonstrable way. Why does the Quebec flag have a cross on it? Why does the "national assembly" have a cross over the speaker's chair? Why does Mount Royal have a cross on it? The Montreal Jewish community is dissappearing for obvious reasons. I, myself, could not conceive raising a family in this hateful place; that doesn't recognize my history here.

--Lance6968 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I will proceed to deconstruct your fallacious arguments.

• "Two Jewish schools fire bombed"

YOU REPEAT THE DECEITFUL LIE THAT THE BOMBINGS ARE RELATED TO FRENCH QUEBECER ALLEGED RACISM after I debunked it here. It is a LIE because the first bombing was found to be perpretrated not by a French Quebecer but a member of the Lebanese community named Sleiman Elmerhebi who pleaded guilty to the charges. [1] Violent actions from Arabs against Jews is NOT a Quebec-specific phenomenon, should I have to underline this truism; it is observed around the world. The second perpretrator has not been discovered, to my knowledge. You are the one committing hasty generalization by taking these two examples (not valid, as I just explained), vaguely speaking of others without foundation, and comming to your own distorted conclusion. Additionally, you flee the challenge of finding a single quote.

Re: "I defy you to find one single modern quote (post 1960s)"

To your reference in respect of the attacks against Jews by Arabs, I would reply that this merely reinforces Barbara Kay’s "The rise of Quebecistan,” where Arabs feel they live in a society that openly accepts antisemitism; and they act accordingly. In September 2002, Jews entering Concordia University, to hear a speech by a former Prime Minister of Israel, were physically and verbally assaulted. The Montreal police, long a bastion of the French Canadians, failed to intervene as they watched the attacks. The obvious inference communicated was that it is acceptable to attack Jews in Quebec.

Another response to your challenge "to find one single modern quote (post 1960s)," is the censure of Guy Bertrand by the Supreme Court of Canada (see: Mugesera v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 91, 2005 SCC 39), where, in its reasons for rejecting a motion for a permanent stay of proceedings, wrote at paragrapgh 17 thereof:

“Regretfully, we must also mention that the motion and the documents filed in support of it include anti-Semitic sentiment and views that most might have thought had disappeared from Canadian society, and even more so from legal debate in Canada. Our society is a diverse one, home to the widest variety of ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups. In this society, to resort to discourse and actions that profoundly contradict the principles of equality and mutual respect that are the foundations of our public life shows a lack of respect for the fundamental rules governing our public institutions and, more specifically, our courts and the justice system.”

Lastly, your assertion that Arab violence against Jews, (and others), is international, is really besides the point. But it does raise the disturbing inference that you believe that there is something “normal” about Arab violence and criminality.

--Lance6968 01:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AND, OF COURSE, THIS CLASSIC OF QUEBECOISE POLITICAL DISCOURSE, 1995

The premier of the province of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, who blamed his political loss on "Money and the Ethnic Vote."

And every French Canadian that I have ever met, and I mean every French Canadian, associates Jews with "money."

--Lance6968 03:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I said : "I defy you to find one single modern quote (post 1960s) from a member of Quebec society that implies we have a supremist ideology that wasn't widely denounced by the other members of the society", Parizeau's quote was widely denounced, in fact he resigned shortly after. You take quotes or events from 70 years ago, or, in the case of Parizeau, a quote that was widely denounced, and you attribute the intention to the whole society. As for associating Jews with money, if it's true, I hardly see how that would be racist, you did so yourself by saying Scots and Jews first developped Montreal's economy... Perhaps those evil French-Canadians have started brainwashing you in your sleep. There are some valid points to be made concerning the existence of this article: maybe the expression isn't widespread enough yet, maybe it should include or reference some better-founded criticism of contemporary Quebec, but your argumentation is non-sense. Essentially, you claim there shouldn't be such an article because Quebec deserves to be bashed. I think you should write propaganda rather than encyclopedic articles. 132.212.92.162 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• "numerous assaults, (both verbal and physical)"

NAME 'em. You say: "more important, however, are actions". Let's talk actions. Lysiane Gagnon (not a dirty biased independentist) reports four times more antisemitic actions in Ontario than Quebec in the year of the first bombing, 2004. [2] In 1992, Jean-François Lisée reported 5 times less in Quebec [3] In 2005, the B'nai Brith counted 544 antisemetic actions in Ontario and 133 in Quebec. This makes incidents in Quebec count for 16% of the total account of antisemitic incidents in Canada while its proportion is a quarter of the Canadian population. [4] This is NOT Tu quoque. The accusation is: Quebec is MORE antisemite than other societies; the numbers REFUTE that argument. If you still believe Quebec to be antisemite, will you now, if you are coherent with yourself, denounce THREE, FOUR, FIVE times more adamantly Ontario? If Quebec is supremacist and akin to the Nazi state, therefor Ontario is three, four, five times "MORE Nazi" than Nazis, and I can't begin to imagin that. Answer to the numbers.

• "failing to recognize the Jewish community's contributions"

Example with René Lévesque: "The modern and dynamic Quebec of today was not built only by the francophones, but also by all the other groups, and in particular by the very creative community that are the Jews." (René Lévesque: Mot à Mot, Éditions Stanké, p.197, ISBN 2-7604-0610-5) It is under Lévesque that the 150th anniversary Act of 1832, that gave Jews full civil and political rights, the first in the British Empire, was celebrated. "[T]he fight of the francophone majority, through their political leaders, to obtain their own collective rights had not blinded them to the concerns of the minorities that lived among them", he said. [5] That's your "supremacist".

• "Jews and Scottish Presbyterians who first developed the Montreal economy"

The contribution is certainly valuable. But it can't be blamed on French Quebecers if they contributed less; it is partly explained by the nature of the colonial regime began at Conquest (as it happened in most colonies, those who inhabited before are not initially part of finances; and don't try to dishonestly pervert this statement), and the discrimination of French Quebecers in a pre-Quiet Revolution Speak White Quebec when French Quebecers were at the bottom of the list of wealth while being a majority, surpassed by more than ten other communities, when "the Quebecois were relegated to the lowest paying jobs and were unable to speak French at many workplaces". [6]

YOU FELL FOR IT

My reference to Jews developing the Montreal economy was, to be honest, a ruse. It is a classic antisemitic motif to associate Jews with wealth. More than 20% of Montreal’s Jewish Community today lives in poverty. It is a characteristic of Judeophobia to see any instance of Jewish wealth amplified to all Jews and to ascribe dishonest methods whereby isolated successful Jews acquired their wealth.

And, regarding the boiler plate pap that: “But it can't be blamed on French Quebecers if they contributed less; it is partly explained by the nature of the colonial regime began at Conquest (as it happened in most colonies, those who inhabited before are not initially part of finances … .” Please, such “colonialism” is hardly credible. It is curious that you only refer to British colonialism, that at least introduced such desirable institutions as the common law, and never to the far more savage French colonialism that preceded it. Clearly this is a case of “your” tyranny is better than “theirs.”

Lastly, your silly assertion that: "the Quebecois were relegated to the lowest paying jobs and were unable to speak French at many workplaces," fails to recognize that Jews had to create their own jobs because, whereas French Canadians would actually be hired by the owners of British capital, (in a world without competition or taxes), Jews were not.

--Lance6968 01:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Why does the Quebec flag have a cross on it?

Why does the Israel flag have a Star of David on it? Does that mean the Jews there are all racists? In 2003, in Israel, 76.7% were Jewish by religion, 15.8% were Muslim, 2.1% were Christian, 1.6% were Druze. There are more people of religions in minority in Israel, and the Muslims obviously contributed to the area in history. But they are not represented on the flag. No Crescent upon the blue and white banner. Nor cross, nor Druze star. So, they're all a bunch of bigots there? (the answer is no, by the way) Furthermore, the cross is kept upon the Quebec flag for simple stupid tradition in a notoriously secular post-Quiet Revolution Quebec (according to FOTW, independentist groups in the 60s had an idea of making the flag of independent Quebec cross-less, but it did not catch on) and the cross from the Quebec flag is a claque of a French flag from the New France era. If you have a beef, take it to France. Same reason for the cross on the seat at the National Assembly of Quebec, it's stupid tradition (thanks for the quotation marks on "National Assembly"; what horrible names you would call me if I wrote the 'Jewish "nation" '). I'd like to see the cross come off the seat, and I'm not the only one. The cross on the Mount Royal is there because of history: Paul Chomedey de Maisonneuve, founder of the city, put one there after a flood, because he swore to do it to the Virgin Mary in prayers if she stopped it (hence, christian symbolism). I assure you he wasn't thinking of oppressing Jews when he found that bright idea.

Last time, you failed to respond to my rebuttal that debunked your arguments, arguments that you repeated despite being proved wrong. I hope it won't be the case this time. --Liberlogos 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

so basically, you can't find a quote, right? the bombings were done in the context of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, not of those evil racist bigot race-based French Canadians. 65.92.218.65 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)newcommer 67.68.175.127

• "Jews and Scottish Presbyterians who first developed the Montreal economy"

Now please don't reply that I'm diminishing the Scottish and Jewish contributions to the city, because I'm not, I recognize they were great, but what you said is factually incorrect. It was the fur trade between the French and the First Nations that first developed the Montreal economy. 65.92.218.65 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC) newcommer

• "Why does the Quebec flag have a cross on it?"

Um, buddy, ever looked at the flags of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia? They all have a cross, granted smaller than the Quebec one. So if size matters, take a look at the British, Finish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic flags... Perhaps all those foreign governments were infiltrated by French-Canadians... 65.92.218.65 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)newcommer 67.68.175.127

Fourth part

Where is discussion of the "Yves Michaud Affair" where the premier of the province of Quebec, an ardent French "Quebecoise" leader, resigned as government leader because his separatist party debated the historocity of the Holocaust or advocated Holocaust denial. See: http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/michaud.htm

--Lance6968 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Bouchard said in his resignation speech that he had 'no appetite' for a debate in Quebec about the Holocaust and the way ethnic communities vote.

"'The Holocaust was the supreme crime, a systematic attempt to eliminate peoples. We should not hold it against the Jewish people for being traumatized by this,' he said."

See:

http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/01/jan18-01/main.asp

--Lance6968 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is a Wikipedia webpage about this affair already. First, you got it wrong. Michaud never denied the Holocaust. He was having an argument with a Jewish friend of his at a Barber Shop, where he is quoted as having said out of frustration that Jews were not the only ones to have suffered in history. Not a very smart thing to say, nevertheless, factually correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.127 (talk • contribs)

This unsigned statement proves my point. I am familiar with the defense "but some of my best friends are Jewish." I would not be friends with a bigot like Yves Michaud; hard to understand why any Jewish person would, and thereby give this bigot such an outrageous defense.

And the statement: "Jews were not the only ones to have suffered in history," clearly is an attempt to minimize Jewish suffering in general, and the memory of the Holocaust, in particular.

--Lance6968 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an attempt to diminish the suffering, it was actually the Jewish friend who was diminishing the sufferance of other people, so Michaud said "your people are not the only ones to have suffered". Again, this is discussed on that wikipedia page, so there's no point in me discussing this further. 65.92.218.65 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)newcommer 67.68.175.127

I will add to the well worded reply from User:67.68.175.127 by pointing out another factual inaccuracy. Parizeau, as it is known, decided to leave office in the case of a NO result BEFORE referendum day and consequently before his remarks. He declared it to renown journalist Stéphan Bureau in an exclusive TVA network interview taped on the day of the plebiscite, before the vote, before the speech. Its existence was revealed by Parizeau on the day of his resignation. The interview is available on tape under the title "Jacques Parizeau: les dernières heures". --Liberlogos 03:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fifth part

Where is discussion of the Jewish school question where funding of Greek, Armenian, etc., day schools were financed with public tax money at 100%; but the program of funding was ended when the Jewish community was to get similar funding of its day schools. This was because the race based "Quebecoise," the press in particular, rejected any support of Jewish schools. It should be noted that two Jewish schools in the past two years have been fire-bombed in the enviroment created by the "Quebecois."

--Lance6968 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about an alleged phenomenon. If these are brought by direct defenders of people accused of "Quebec bashing", quotes and references could be considered. If not, it probably belongs to other pages, maybe with a link to them on this article. Many counter-counter-points are not mentioned also. The Jewish school question was opposed because of left-wing opposition to private funding and a refusal to isolate the community, which is the opposite of racism. The "enviroment created by the 'Quebecois'" comment seems to be engineered to deceitfully bypass the fact that the 2004 incident was proved to be perpretrated by a member of the Arab community, not an old-stock Quebecer. And who were among the first to denouce these acts on the public stage? A panel of French Quebecers, with notorious independentist rap group Loco Losass as catalysts and leaders. I will point out that there have been four times more anti-semite incidents in Ontario in that same year than in Quebec. So, isn't a specifically higher Quebec anti-semitism the "artificial construct" here? Just try to argue, it should be enjoyable. --Liberlogos 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, your facts are wrong. Armenian and Greek schools are not funded 100% (I should know, I attended one, and my grandfather paid for my education!) There is I believe one exception (a Greek school on the South Shore, for some quirky historical reason). The Jewish schools are and were always funded on the same level as the other ethnic schools. The media criticized the decision of funding the Jewish schools 100% because there was no logical reason to favor one comunity over another, and it smelled like a return of favor from the Liberal Party to some Jewish organizations who helped them in their electoral campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.127 (talk • contribs)

It is you, in an unsigned statement, that has the facts wrong. Funding of Jewish schools was at 80% of MEQ prescribed materials; and never covered such disciplines as Hebrew-language study, Jewish history, Bible study etc. This differed from the Greeks, Armenians, etc., where funding was at 100%. Furthermore, Jews have been in Quebec since 1627, (see: Jews & French Quebecers, by Jacques Langlais & David Rome, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1991), and, together with the French and native peoples have the longest history in this land. Roman Catholic schools, from which Jews could not attend, are fully funded by taxes paid by Quebec's Jewish population; as well as Greek, Armeian etc. This makes the 2004 withdrawal of funding for Jewish schools all the more deplorable.

--Lance6968 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Armenian schools are not funded 100%. Can't vouch for the Greeks, (and like I said, I think there is one that is funded 100%), but I guess it's pointless to both keep saying the other is wrong. If someone wants to find out which one of us is saying the truth, they can call them up: http://www.sourphagop.com/ecole/, http://www.alexmanoogian.qc.ca/

Re: Armenian Schools vs. Jewish Schools

You don't seem to get it. MEQ requirements are publicly financed at 100%. That does not preclude these schools for still charging fees for content outside MEQ requirements. But reasonable argument seems to be absent from your comment that exposes ignorance of the issue. In contradistinction, Jewish Schools were also to receive similar funding until the anti-Jewish French-press raised a storm of controversy and an anti-Jewish campaign in 2004. Funding of Jewish schools was thereafter withdrawn notwithstanding that the Jewish community supports through taxes and otherwise other communities' schools.

--64.228.248.29 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No you're wrong, all private schools are funded 100% as far as MEQ requirements are concerned. The controversy was about funding Jewish schools 100% (not only for MEQ requirements). At every election, a debate rises over the question of funding private schools. If I'm wrong, show some evidence, references. 132.212.92.162 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, so like you said, there have been Jews in Quebec since 1627, and like you, I think they've contributed a lot to our society. So why do you keep insisting that Quebec is a race-based and French-supremist? There have also been Portuguese, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, French Huguenots since the 1600's. A quick browse through René Jetté's dictionary of Quebec's population from 1621 to 1730 will convince anybody of that. Quebec was never, is not, and hopefully never will be a homogenous society. 65.92.218.65 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)newcommer

Sixth part

In a "postscript" to renowned novelist and essayist Mordecai Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country, (Penguin, 1992), pp. 259-260, the aforementioned heavy-weight of Canadian litterature commented on the aforementioned Ray Conlogue. Dr. Richler ended his aforesaid book with Conlogue's fabricated comments in respect of Dr. Richler's September 1991 article in The New Yorker about French Canadian, (or "Quebecois, to use a term of the race-based society that exists in the province of Quebec), antisemitism and the oppressive language laws that outlaw English-language commercial signs; thus giving the false immpression that Montreal is a uniquely French-speaking city:

I cannot allow a blast that was published in the Globe and Mail to pass without comment. Ray Conlogue's column began: "Every two or three years Mordecai Richler mounts a lucrative podium of a well known American magazine to deliver himself a thunderbolt directed against the province of Quebec." Actually, I have written other pieces about Quebec in the last fourteen years, the last one in 1984. Two of them appeared in Atlantic Monthly and one in Geo. Closer to the mark, Conlogue wrote, "Conspicuously absent from Richler's piece was a word about the flourishing Quebecoise culture." Right. There was not a word about Quebecois hockey players, surgeons, restaurateurs, or gardeners, since the article was about the province's language laws. In his column, Conlogue also claimed that he had phoned The New Yorker and been told "that the magazine had been overwhelmed by a flood of hostile, and apparently unexpected, phone calls about the article." I have also been in touch with The New Yorker. The only person in the editorial department whom Conlogue spoke to declined an interview, but on the understanding that what he would say was not for publication, he added that there had been some phone calls in praise of my article, and others from people displeased by it. He also had the foresight to write down immediately what Conlogue had said to him. Complaining about the fact that I had been commissioned to write the article, Conlogue said: "You understand that [Richler] is a disaffected, English-speaking, Jewish writer, outside the mainstream, and having him represent us is like having a Hispanic speak for all of America [emphasis added]."

Conlogue admitted these remarks on Montreal radio station CJAD 800 AM while being interviewed on the Tommy Schnurmacher Show.

--

I note that the references here are highly tendentious.

Where is discussion of Esther Delisle's The Traitor and the Jew? Mordecai Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country, (Penguin, 1992), made reference to this aforementioned work with respect to the endemic antisemitism in Quebec. Antisemitism---according to Dr. Delisle, who has been accused of being "Jewish" by her French Canadian, "Quebecoise," detractors, (she is not Jewish, but French Roman Catholic)---has been used to manufacture a race based "Quebecoise" identity, where anyone who is not French-speaking and of Catholic origin, is not "pure wool."

See my response to the quote attributed to the evidently racist Ray Conlogue, as evidenced by the quote from Dr. Richler's herein-above mentioned book.

--Lance6968 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

About your comment "Quebecois, to use a term of the race-based society that exists in the province of Quebec", the use of the term "Québécois" was spread to have a citizen-based belonging. "French-Canadian" did not allow that, but now "Québécois" is there to offer a rallying point for all citizen of the Quebec state, a society in which the Jewish Quebecer Péquiste David Levine (and let me tell you that he is not the only Jewish sovereigntist) or the Haitian Quebecer Péquiste Jean Alfred (first black man at the National Assembly) belong just as much as old-stock Quebecers. I will add having "Quebecois" standardly being a reference to French Quebecers is an English language construct. What is the basis of the statement that the references are tendencious, other that they are from Quebec, the society in question (and, maybe worse, from French)? Esther Delisle's work, since it has been accused of "Quebec bashing", could be discussed. Also discussed will be its debunking by various personalities. If the quote is correct, Conologue seemed to point out just what it said: that the opinion of a marginal individual from a minority segment of a population might not offer a balanced representation of the wider scope of a given society, like in the case of (to invert your own over-used prism) an Arab given sole voice about Israel or a Franco-Manitoban about English Canadian society. This is especially of consideration when information to international media about a society is given sparignly, by the dropper, and always by the same segment defending the same opinion, like in the case of the Quebec society. It would seem that your agitation and acerbity follow from being confronted with documented facts and the view point that is occulted in English Canadian media, the one coming from the very society in question. --Liberlogos 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To Liberlogos:

Re: "that the opinion of a marginal individual from a minority segment of a population might not offer a balanced representation of the wider scope of a given society"

Mordecai Richler was not "a marginal individual," as you wrote. He was Canada's, and Quebec's, premier novelist and essayist. And your assertion: "from a minority segment of a population might not offer a balanced representation of the wider scope of a given society," proves my point. According to you a Jew, as such, "might not offer a balanced representation of the wider scope of a given society." Clearly, even a vastly superior intellect, such as Richler's was, cannot, in your view, represent Quebec. Despite your bigoted point of view, when someone from America, for example, wants to understand Quebec, Dr. Richler will be the first reference. This is because, in addition to his amazing talent as a writer, he was immpecably honest. So honest, that he was ridiculed in the Jewish community for his criticisms of Jews and Jewish society. But, it appears that in your view, a Jewish person is at best "a marginal individual from a minority segment of a population"; and, as such, not a true "Quebecoise." Clearly, you have proven my point.

--Lance6968 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• "According to you"

This is yet another now sad repetition of the straw-man argument where you take one's words and regurgitate them in your altered state to better lambast them. I have INTERPRETED Conologue's statement; I did not voice this statement. To quote myself: "Conologue seemed to point out [...]". I will however underline that Richler is an immensly marginal ― premier author. Both can coexist and it is fallacy to claim the contrary (he's good therefor he represents a vast majority). Outside the box "Quebec bashers" live in, in Quebec, the point of view of Richler is infinitesimal and extremist. "Extremist"? Read the following paragraphs; the word is not strong. But "Quebec bashers" seem to forget that there's 7.5 million people in Quebec. Evaluating the prevalence of an opinion, they will considerably underestimate the opinion of the French-speakers (and that is seeing the world through a prism of race). And, as I pointed out here equating acknowledgment of race and discrimination in a false, dangerous equation that feeds the problem rather quelling it. Also, if criticizing someone that happens to be Jewish makes one antisemite, then Mordecai Richler himself is guilty. You have also fled from answering my question: "What is the basis of the statement that the references are tendencious, other that they are from Quebec, the society in question (and, maybe worse, from French)?". --Liberlogos 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "You have also fled from answering my question: "What is the basis of the statement that the references are tendencious...?"

It is that the references appear to fail to acknowledge that the criticism is justified. The sources are both defensive and aggressive against the sources of critism.

--Lance6968 08:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Richler, "was immpecably honest"

You have just written "impecably honest" ― about Mordecai Richler. So, I begin. And hope that, like here, you will not flee from answer. It is Mordecai Richler who defamed the notoriously tolerant René Lévesque by smearing him with lies that made him beset with charges of antisemitism in the United States and he was barred from speaking at an American university because the Dean believed he was antisemite; Lévesque, one of the first journalists to enter Dachau, images that haunted him for his whole life and taught him a lesson he kept for life. Refer to here for some proofs of Lévesque's judeophilia. Someone, as said Jean-François Lisée, that was "a friend of the Israeli cause" (now, I know just about every sovereigntist might be deemed by you as a bad biased reference, but I use Lisée, who has proved his reliability, as opposed to Richler). Lisée wrote in Dans l'oeil de l'aigle that being called an antisemite was Lévesque's "greatest chagrin".

Impeccable: without flaw or error; faultless; an impeccable record; (Collins)

Lisée's no blinded Richler hater. Very polite, bestruck by amazement, he says of his work: "Mordecai Richler is someone very intelligent, that writes books ― I myself read Solomon Gursky [...] It's remarkable. It's ambitious, there's a control of the story, of rythmn, a depth of the characters, we have here someone that is very creative." (his merits as an artist are not in debate here). But, about Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Québec!, Lisée says "The contempt that he has for Quebecers, and for the facts, that trickles from every page, hurt me, as a Quebecer, [...] as a journalist also, as an author, the intellectual dishonesty with which he plays with the facts, he makes comparisons that are absolutely unacceptable, it gave me an enormous headache to read this book, it stopped me from sleeping. [...] Evidently, here in Quebec, we know that he exagerates, but someone has to say it to English Canadians." He did this in a televised Newsworld debate where he impressed the English Canadian audience and disarmed his false assertions. Lisée says: "A part of the logical atrifices, the sophisms that he employs in this book, he uses them on purpose." [7]

Impeccable: without flaw or error; faultless; an impeccable record; (Collins)

In the Athlantic Monthly, in 1976-77, Richler linked Lévesque to Nazism and said that the theme song of the PQ campaing "À partir d'aujourd'hui, demain nous appartient" was a Nazi song, "Tomorrow belongs to me... the chilling Hitler Youth song from Cabaret". This foundation-less ludicrous slander was milked only from the fact that they have one similar line in common ("demain nous appartient" - "tomorrow belongs to me", a common expression). The rest of the text has nothing to do with it, nor the music, and EVEN it it had, the Cabaret song, never sung in Nazi Germany, was written in the 1960s by Jewish American lyricist and composer. "À partir d'aujourd'hui" was written by renown songwriter Stéphanne Venne when he was asked to compose a song for an advertisement of the Caisses populaires Desjardins. They turned it down and some months later Venne then gave it to a following client, the Parti Québécois. Richler repeated the fabrication at the CBC. Then the American magazine Commentary. [8] Co-writer of the Commentary article Irwin Cotler issued a written apology to René Lévesque. Not Richler. [9] An example of bad faith, it is shamefully shotty and dishonest work. This man draged the reputation of a fellow man, a legitimate legal political movement and a whole people through the mud and linked them to the greatest systematical murderous horror of the 20th century because two distant songs had three to four words loosely in common.

Impeccable: without flaw or error; faultless; an impeccable record; (Collins)

Richler wrote in his book, as if it were common knowledge, that Louis-Joseph Papineau's Patriote Party of the 19th century (those responsible for the Act of 1832, that had been called a 'Magna Carta' of Jewish rights) had the "stated aim" of slaughtering Jews. No such proofs exist; no such claims are to be found in any true historian's work. Jewish professor Ben Shek, in the Jewish magazine Outlook, said the assertion was not only false, but an attempt to smear francophones. He also notes a double standard where Richler downplays the bigotry of fellow English speakers, which he "never refers to as racist, a term reserved for the Québécois." [10] Richler was condemned for his depiction of Quebecers by the Canadian Jewish Congress in 1992. The man commited harassment, defamation, slander, against an entire ethnic group, with falsehoods and lies; falsehoods and lies. Jean-François Lisée says "Here is someone that is so convinced that his cause is just, that he is ready to lie ― for his cause." Despite all, all this, a great number of French Quebecers spoke well of the author Richler at the time of his passing. In the aformentioned debate, Richler said he was "troubled" that people could not react to such attacks with "humour". Speaking of statistics Richler wrote of (that he used despite the Jewish Congress telling him they were false), Lisée responded: "I, myself, find nothing funny about knowing that in California, and Manchester, people will read that, in my family, seven out of ten are highly antisemite, when it is a vulgar fabrication, I find nothing funny about it". [11]

Impeccable: without flaw or error; faultless; an impeccable record; (Collins)

Honesty: Truthfulness; sincerity; (American Heritage)

I inadvertently deleted something here and I don't know how to recover it. I am new to Wikipedia. --Lance6968 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It was restored; thank you for pointing it out. --Liberlogos 07:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read all of Richler's books and writings; and I have to say that Solomon Gursky Was Here was Richler's most dense and impenetrable novel. It is a story that is difficult to follow, and a truly painful burden to maintain interest in while reading such a long and ambitious novel. The New York Times book review seems to agree with my take on the novel. So it is indeed interesting that Lisée's assertion that: "It's remarkable. It's ambitious, there's a control of the story, of rythmn, a depth of the characters, we have here someone that is very creative." It seems to me he was merely building Richler up to show his false bona fides; just to thereafter tear him down. Richler wrote some truly amazing novels. Why did Lisée make reference to Solomon Gursky Was Here? Was it merely because it was reasonably contemporaneous with Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!? Or, more likely: Was it an attempt to distract away from baseless personal attacks? Clearly, Lisée was unfamiliar with the satirical nature of Richler's writing (and, yes, I am suggesting that Lisée did not read Solomon Gursky Was Here, as he claimed). I would be horrified if anyone believed that Richler's characterization of Jews in his novels had any relation to actual Jews. Astonishingly, it appears, that some people are really that dumb.

--Lance6968 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed discussion

Where are the articles for bashing every other Canadian province and territory?

I'll get it started here:

• Alberta bashing
• British Columbia bashing
• Manitoba bashing
• New Brunswick bashing
• Newfoundland and Labrador bashing
• Northwest Territories bashing
• Nova Scotia bashing
• Nunavut bashing
• Ontario bashing
• Prince Edward Island bashing
• Saskatchewan bashing
• Yukon Territory bashing

--NorthernThunder 11:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

HaHa, funny. They don't exist because English Canadians are intolerant only towards Quebecers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.172 (talk • contribs)

>>>NOTE: User:Lance6968 has attempted to remove the above comment contrary to his view point without given reason. This may be considered as vandalism.<<<

Your false accusation of "vandalism" is unfounded. I may have inadvertently deleted something here, that was not my writing, when deleting text that I had entered. Curious how an inadvertent error without consequences, (the text is still here), has you jumping to conclusions at my expense. Such accusations fall under the fallacy designated as an: Ad hominem - abusive argument.

--Lance6968 02:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Quebec can't even be distinct in oppression. Well, I guess they will have to start defemating each other province equally to erase that distinction (or, crazy idea, stop it in the case of Quebec). --Liberlogos 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above are patently absurd. "Nunavut bashing"?? But here in British Columbia the central federal government, and the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec come in for about the same amount of strong criticism. (The unholy T-O-M triangle of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal). Even Albertans sometimes get hit, and there is anti-First Nations sentiment on a constant low simmer. If 'Province/Culture Bashing' is a proper subject for a Wikipedia article, then eventually this may be seen in the larger context of the strains on Confederation caused by linguistic, cultural, geographical and other divisions. The Québec version of this is 'distinct' because of the historical tensions between French and English cultures in central Canada and because of the unique historic and current position of Québec society within the broader Canadian framework. On the whole I think the article is a very good essay (or polemic?) on the topic, the author has researched his or her examples, and sets out his/her point with intelligence, but I don't know that the article adheres strictly to NPOV in its present form. Assuming "Quebec bashing" exists (extreme or undue critical mistruth or inflammatory statements that are 'defamatory' towards Québec and Québecois, in the sense of highly prejudicial statements or allegations that are untrue or motivated by prejudice, bigotry or bad faith) then it is at the extreme end of the spectrum of free speech that ranges through legitimate critical expression into the more extreme expression where it takes on the overtones of 'bashing' and comes within striking distance of even more extreme examples of hate speech that are actually contrary to the Criminal Code. I assume the article is not intending to take the position that Québec government, policies, society or institutions are not to be criticized at all by anglophone Quebecers or persons outside Quebec.24.68.237.84 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Corlyon 26 September 2006

Pure laine

[moved from main article]

Maybe someone authorized should make this section a separate page...

The expression "pure laine" in French literally means 'pure wool'. In Quebec, it refers to someone of old French Canadian heritage, descendent of the French settlers of New France (1534-1763). It is a mix reference to the label seen on wool clothes and to the Patron Saint of Quebec and French Canadians, Saint John the Baptist, who was a sheep hearder.

Jan Wong criticized its use, though it is equivalent to the expressions "corn bred" or "All-American" and more often used as a tongue-in-cheek rather than a claim of ethnic purity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.175.172 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reference on the link with Saint John the Baptist? Also, I will point out that you, like anyone, are "authorized" to write on Wikipedia and create new article, such is the beauty of Wikipedia. One only needs to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Liberlogos 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a reference outside Wikipedia, it's just pretty well known. The traditional Saint John the Baptist parades on June 24 (Quebec's National holiday) always had a young boy dressed as a sheep hearder, and some sheeps. There were two documentaries by Jacques Godbout (Le Mouton noir -- The Black Sheep) and its sequel (Les héritiers du mouton noir) about the "national issue" of Quebec. Patron saints of places wikipedia page mentions already that SJB is patron Saint of French-Canadians or Quebec. Maybe I made a mistake about SJB being a sheep hearder though, I think it's more that he's always represented with a sheep. The Saint John the Baptist wikipedia page mentions "The Gospel of John states that the next day John publicly announced Jesus as the Lamb of God".

Re:Lance6968: Latin logical fallacy extravaganza

Lance6968, what you commit "is the formal fallacy referred to as" ad nauseam, because you repeat excessively the same false accusations over and over (ad infinitum), especially concerning anti-semitism, and because your hateful diatribe frankly brings one to nausea. If I used your dishonest logic, I would say that this fallacy was attributed to Goebbels, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin, therefor implying a similarity with you, but this would commit your second fallacy, reductio ad Hitlerum. Your comments have also gained the merit of ad hominem, notably on Ray Conologue. You furthermore take the comments of others, present your own biased interpretation of them and use it to come to the distorted conclusion that it "proves your point", committing the straw man argument. You seem to use latin logical fallacy phrases and tangled sentences to make an appeal to intellectualism and prestige, in a twisted form of appeal to authority. You have used hasty generalization, as exposed here. You commit sophism and you are also violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and by riddling User:67.68.175.127 with blame, as you are, for not signing, you transgress Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (at the moment this is written, this user has not yet registered and has six edits, all here). This is not Wikipedian, or civilized, behaviour. --Liberlogos 09:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about personal attacks. So much hubris.

--Lance6968 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Wow, this article seems to in a different dimension. Perhaps it's just poorly written, but it seems to imply that there isn't any pro-French sentiments in Quebec? Is this article even necessary? Perhaps it can just be deleted! Thoughts? Nfitz 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand, what do you mean by pro-French? pro-France-French? pro-Frenchlanguage? 65.92.218.65 03:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean pro-French Quebecer in English-speaking Quebec, quotes are provided when such articles defending Quebec are written, like the cited editorial of The Gazette, the article of Don Macpherson, the comments of Jack Jedwab, all taking Quebec's defense. If you mean pro-French Quebecer in English, quotes are given for such people as Ray Conologue and PM Stephen Harper. Now if you mean pro-French in French Quebec, there are dozens of references. Your objection is unclear. This is a highly documented and debated issue in Quebec, subject of books and hundereds of articles and therefor necessary. This (the Jan Wong controversy) is making all the news this week in Quebec. It's not because you havn't heard of it that it's not necessary, maybe it proves the opposite. --Liberlogos 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's step back a minute. What is the point of this article? That there is the existence of a vast minority of Quebecois, who believe that one must be french and white (the pur laine lot), and if your not french and white, you don't fit it in ... this exists, and everyone knows it. I just don't quite know what this article is trying to say - it seems badly written, with poor grammar. "The remainder of the text is absolutely unrelated, nor is the music." what does this mean? Or this "Claiming Canada "at war"" ... that just doesn't make sense. Or this "She claimed that an independent Quebec, separated from the wisdom of English Canada, would remove the Hezbollah from the terrorist list "by day two". ... how is that related to the article? Who is "half-Algerian ... that is a funny name for someone? But step back ... what is the point of this article? Perhaps it shouldn't be tagged as NPOV but as just unclear Nfitz 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you believe that "a vast minority of Quebecois, who believe that one must be french and white (the pur laine lot), and if your not french and white, you don't fit it in ... this exists, and everyone knows it" goes a lot to say about the success of the denigration campaign against Quebec. This is a huge prejudice that is no more based on facts than the prejudice that Black people are genetically more violent than White people, that feminists are a bunch of angry lesbians etc. The point of the article, although I would agree that the bad English used in it makes it less obvious, is to describe the phenomenon known in Canadian English and Quebec French as Quebec bashing : the ceaseless bashing on Quebec in the English language media of Canada (especially the written press). This phenomenon has contributed to create the image of a backwards province of Quebec in the minds of millions of monlingual Canadian English speakers who are now convinced that so much could not have been written on the evil closed minded, bigoted French separatists for these people to be only fictional. Yet, that is the case when one bothers to face reality. Much like the angry, Anti-American Arab islamist fundamentalist, ready to kill civilians in the name of his backwards beliefs is a gross caricature of Arabs in general, including those who oppose American International policy, so is the opressive intolerant xenophobic 100% pure wool Quebecois nationalist character incredibly unrepresentative of French-speaking Quebecers in general, including those who oppose Canadian federal policy in Quebec. You don't make something true out of something false by printing it in the media 5 million times. -- Mathieugp 20:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are vague. What is a "vast minority"? 49%? "everyone knows it" You speak of folk knowledge brought by argument from repetition. But step back ... How is any of this related to an NPOV dispute argument? "different dimension", "what does this mean", "funny name"... It goes left and right and I still can't exactely put my finger on what is brought forward. But I can say that it does not bring forward a single bias-related problematic, which is why a NPOV template is supposed to be added and the dedicated subject of the section. The template will have to come off until bias is actually argumented. --Liberlogos 08:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nfitz, I find the article very clear. It's not about a minority of racist people. Quebec bashing is about people from without the Quebec society, either misquoting, misrepresenting facts, or drawing hasty conclusions from them in a way that makes the majority of Quebecers look like racists, or attributing racist comments or actions from a minority of Québécois (often from a distant past) to the majority of modern Quebecers. The article explains this, and then gives several concrete examples of Quebec Bashing from notorious individuals. There's nothing here about anyone being or not being pro-French. Perhaps you came to the page thinking it was something else, maybe if you re-read it now, it will start making sense to you. 69.156.25.31 15:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem, is that I don't understand much of it. For example second sentance "It includes examples in the English Canadian media, but also examples of anti-Quebec coverage from other countries, often based on Canadian sources, that tarnish Quebec's international reputation. In a wider definition, it can mean Quebec denigration in general. ". Now the pronoun "It" must be referring to Quebec-bashing. So the sentance becomes "Quebec bashing includes examples in the English Canadian Media ..."; I just don't understand what that means ... I can see there being exapmples of Quebec bashing in the media, but how could the bashing include the examples? Perhaps NPOV isn't fair at this stage ... but it should be tagged for rewrite. Nfitz 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nfitz that it should be tagged for rewrite. In its current form, the article is not very comprehensive. Sentences are not very clear and I am certain someone who is not familiar with the subject will have no clue at all. I had started something on this subject in my drafts page (User:Mathieugp/drafts/Quebec bashing) when this article was just a stub, so I consider myself familiar with the subject. I did touch my draft partly because this is a huge topic and preliminary analysis made me realise it was best to work on indivial cases first (Delisle Richler-Controversy, the Michaud Affair etc.). We are talking about thousands of newspaper articles written over a period of 10 years, a few cases that went to court (eg Lafferty, Harwood & Partners vs Parizeau), reactions to the phenomenon by various people prompting them to write books on the subject (journalist Normand Lester, Guy Bouthillier etc.) -- Mathieugp 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The language problem examples you have raised have been fixed. --Liberlogos 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I noted but a few; virtually every sentence has grammar problems in it - if nothing else it needs a complete rewrite; the first sentance is clunky, the second sentance "It is used even in a French language setting" ... "French-language setting" surely. The 4th sentance doesn't seem to be referenced ". In a wider definition, it can mean Quebec denigration in general. Unfavourable depiction of Quebec in the media became especially prevalent in the years following the 1995 Quebec referendum on Quebec independence." ... I'd say that anti-French commentary in the media in the late 1990s and early part of this century are much less than in the 1970s and 1980s; what is the basis for this extreme claim? What is "high racism" - is that related to "high Anglican"? "Pure laine" ... isn't the term "pur laine". Should articles really be using words like "calumniated"? The language problems go on and on. And then there are the examples - most are highly obscure people; those that are known, are muck-raking journalists or dead; these people don't speak for Canada. And Howard Stern? He's trashed absolutely everyone - having that there is just silly. " not old-stock French Quebecers (Marc Lépine, half-Algerian, Valery Fabrikant ... who is half-Algerian ... that's a funny name for someone? .... Nfitz 04:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have touched up every single one of the examples you had raised. Every single one.
• "'French-language setting' surely" Now, I'm the one asking what does that mean.
• You take issue with the phrase "high racism". Ridiculous; now you're just nitpicking. "High: greater than normal in degree, intensity, or amount; high prices; a high temperature; a high wind; (Collins).
• "'Pure laine' ... isn't the term 'pur laine'" Googlesearch on 'Pur laine': 394,000 hits. Googlesearch on 'pur laine': 21,700 hits. "Laine", for "wool", is of feminine grammatical gender. See also: "Québécois pure laine" at the wikitionary and the Télé-Québec television show Pure laine (comedy about immigrants in Quebec, named in a tongue-in-cheek fashion).
• "And then there are the examples" On "Obscure": the subject of the article is what has been called "Quebec bashing", which they have been; and how does that make them any less Quebec bashing? And, Mordecai Richler, obscure? Diane Francis, obscure? Even Jan Wong is (or was) a respected Globe and Mail journalist. Lawrence Martin is a well-known biographer. Do we erase articles about events that involve "obscure" people like, let's say (and obviously without comparison between Quebec bashing and what happened), Matthew Shepard, because the perpetrators were "obscure"? And outside the Richlers and the Francis, people like Barbara Kay *stopped* being obscure in Quebec after their articles became widely known. The main thing is not that it shows the most unobscure people write such things, it is that is shows a trend.
• You seem to nitpick for language problems because it is the only aspect you find for shooting down the article. Here's the deal, you write a 50 kilobytes long article in French and then we'll compare. --Liberlogos 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note that I point out the problems so that they can be fixed. Personally, I'm not familiar with the term "high racism" ... with phrases like that, just don't understand the meaning. Okay, if it is "pure laine" in French ... so be it. Never said Diane Francis was obscure, she would be in the "muck-raking journalist" category. Moredecai Richler is in the dead category - besides, as a Quebecker himself, presumably he wasn't bashing Quebec, so much as a part of it's culture. I nitpick for language, because the article was so difficult to read, that I couldn't fathom it's meaning as a whole ... it is improving, I'll give you that. Personally, I have no desire to write 50 kB articles on the French Wikipedia ... why would I, it's now my language ... I might fix the odd typo or something over there if I catch it; but why would I have any interest in editing in a tongue other than my own? Nfitz 05:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Liberlogos just means to say "strong racism". -- Mathieugp 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why use such vague terms ... does strong racism mean that very racist, or racism of a serious nature? Nfitz 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To counter regional bias, as Wikipedia expects. To follow Wikipedia's own suggestion to contribute in another language even if one does not master it. To enjoy the beauties and pleasures of different languages and the richness knowing them brings. To share and communicate with the world. To de-cloister the various groups of this world's fellow women and men. To take one's rightful place as a citizen of the world. --Liberlogos 06:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I'm re-reading this, I'm asking myself: are you saying I shouldn't, or French-speaking Quebecers, French people, and other people that happen to have other native languages, should *not* contribute to the English-language Wikipedia? --Liberlogos 07:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About the use of the word "calumniated": I wheighted carefully this word. As Bouchard and Parizeau were compared to such people as Hitler and the Devil, "calumniated" is apt.

Refutation outside Quebec

I added that many people outside of Quebec disagree with "Quebec Bashing" just as much as many Quebeckers do and it was promptly removed. I find that to be fairly unfair. Stephen Harper, and the entire House of Commons voted to demand a retraction of her article, and numerous op ed pieces and radio commentaries have been run arguing against JW, not to mention promoting Quebec in all manner of ways. To make it seem like nobody in English Canada has ever defended Quebec is patently wrong. Peregrine981 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but keep in mind this is a new article. The facts you mention are on the webpage as we speak. Nobody is saying that all of Canada outside Quebec is doing Quebec Bashing. Nevertheless, the phenomenon exists. 67.68.175.212 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The examples you bring about politicians are true, but only represent the political elite of English Canada that does not necessarily represent others. The op ed pieces and radio commentaries you mention are not referenced. You speak of the "Jan Wong controversy", where it was so extreme people reacted, but it is a single occurence among many. In the last decade, denounciation, or even attention, comments good or bad, about such articles have been rare. Right now, these are mentioned in the body of the article. It could go to the intro if sufficient proof was made of consistent denounciation, inside and outside the political realm. --Liberlogos 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You have deliberately insulated yourself against any attempt at disproof, as any anglo criticizing Wong is now either a political elite or someone motivated purely by the magnitude of Wong's polemics, who would not normally stoop to defend Quebec. --Saforrest 08:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, even in the case of Jan Wong, see the quote from the Globe and Mail editorial: "[i]n English Canada, unsurprisingly, the response has been considerably more muted". [12] --Liberlogos 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think that the response to Stephen Harper's "culture of defeat" comment about the Maritimes probably was "more muted" outside the Maritimes than inside. When you single out a region for criticism, it's rather natural for that region to respond disproportionately.

As it currently stands, the complete absence of any reference to criticism of Wong from non-Quebec sources other than Harper is deeply imbalanced and seems calculated the give the impression that general sympathy for Wong's views exists in English Canada. --Saforrest 07:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I commented this on the deletion nomination page under Saforrest's main comment; please refer to it also. I profoundly understand your arguments and how you feel about this. Now, the two edits including English Canada in the introduction made the amount and level of Quebec outrage seem equal with those of Canada outrage. As you have noticed, the inclusion of the mention of Quebec denunciation has been put under heavy standards, because this is a controversial subject, and it is expected that mentions of English Canada be put under the same scrutiny. The outrage in Quebec indépendantiste circles is well documented; it is included. The denunciations in Quebec federalist circles are documented; it is included. To be more precise, it is documented in Wong's case (a politician, Charest, but also a non-elected editorialist, Pratte, a newspaper with a federalist line, The Gazette, and there's also the example of Alain Dubuc to be added soon), but most importantly this is not an isolated case since people like Pratte for example also criticized such things earlier, as did the Gazette. Now, on the English Canadian side (teritorially-speaking), a body of reference showing outrage that is not isolated (like Ray Conlogue, an arguably maverick journalist on Quebec matters who's been accused of having Stockholm's Syndrome because of it) has not been built.

About politicians, my point is that they are under a vastly different pressure than a common citizen or a newspaper columnist. If the Charests of Quebec had not been accompanied by the Prattes of Quebec, I would have written the passage "of all political colours in Quebec" differently. Charest and Harper have *already* been accused of "trying to win votes in Quebec", for example by Wong herself, and this question was the subject of the last Les Coulisses du pouvoir on the SRC (linked on the deletion discussion page). In the Late Night with Conan O'Brien controversy, the NDP MP's that denounced the Triumph the Insult Comic Dog bit were also suspected to be trying to win votes in Quebec. Finally, politicians have des Devoirs d'État, "State Duties" that do not have others.

There is value to your comment on outrage being more important in the society targetted; let us not look for the same amount of outrage, of course, but let us meet similar standards. In the case of Quebec, and its two National Question ideologies, two questions have been answered. First, is the denunciation to be found in popular circles, outside the political realm? Answer: yes. Second, is the denunciation to be found outside isolated events (and not only from isolated commentators). Answer: yes. Therefor, *let us* answer these questions for English Canada, let us search for the comments made there, positive and negative, and let us estimate according to the body of references, with the same standards used for the other information here. Then we'll see what must be underlined about English Canadian reactions, where and how. --Liberlogos 14:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming articles like this

I'm still thinking about whether this article is legit or not, and to be clear I haven't decided. Here are some Google hit observations:

• "Quebec bashing", hits 2,430 Correction: 501 hits; See reply below
• "Christian bashing", hits 76,000, no Wikipedia article or even a redirect with this term, although anti-Christian is an article.
• "Conservative bashing", hits 21,600, no Wikipedia article by that title.
• "Liberal bashing", hits 72,100, no Wikipedia article by that title.

I'm just not exactly sure where we're going with an article name like this. I'm thinking the whole thing is bogus. Every group, government, etc, is going to get criticism, but does that mean we need a bashing article about them? Thoughts? Deet 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The comparisons are not really fair: less people talk about Quebec than Christians, Liberals or Conservatives. Quebec Bashing is the term that is most used for diffamation against Quebec and Quebecers. Just like antisemiticism is the term for diffamation of Jews. 67.68.175.212 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Google must be broken... ;-)

How come I get 321 000 results when typing "Quebec bashing" in www.google.ca ? (No joke here.) -- Mathieugp 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you're picking up all the pages with the word "Quebec" and the word "bashing", but not the term "Quebec bashing". You need to put double-quotes around the term to search for it. By the way, that will also pick up "Quebec-bashing" because Google ignores the hyphen. However, you're right, I don't know why but I do get a different result now when I double-check it. Its only 501 hits. Deet 01:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the word bashing, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bashing :

3. b) Verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing. (Dictionary.com)

3. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed the... government unmercifully over the... spy affair" (Lally Weymouth) (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Regarding the expression Quebec bashing, an expression giving 321 000 results in Google, it is a little bit late to reject it I believe as this expression has been referring to the phenomenon for many years now. -- Mathieugp 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if the article were to exist, wouldn't it be Quebec-bashing rather than Quebec bashing? Nfitz 21:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Can someone who actually understands the rule for the use of the hyphen in the English language answer it? I have never seen it written with an hyphen before, but that does not constitute a valid proof that it is the correct spelling. I was under the impression that in English you should write for example "Quebec-bashing phenomenon" because it this phrase it is an adjective. I don't think it takes one when "Quebec bashing" is a noun. -- Mathieugp 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all an easy question to answer, even by linguists. It really is a question of usage rather than hard-and-fast rulings. Take our own article line engraving, about half of the occurrences of the compound noun within the article is line-engraving and half is line engraving. The first dictionary I consulted on this, Collins English Dictionary, gives it as line-engraving. However, the Longman Dictionary of the English Language gives it as line engraving. Probably a case of "you pays your money and takes your choice".

Normally, usage determines the hyphenation. When a compound noun is first conceived, it is usually a noun noun compound, later when it has become well established (as in this case, it has become a traditional trade, after quite a considerable time, it adopted a hyphen, as a noun-noun compound). Line dancing will probably take some time before it adopts a hyphen. It depends on the frequency of use and the length of use. If people still line-dance in fifty years from now, it will probably be line-dancing.

At a later stage still, compounds tend to fuse altogether which we see in ancient trade words, plant names, tools and materials. The various stages of development may be seen in 'glass wool', 'glass-maker' and 'glasspaper'. However, some writers will be well on the way to the fused 'glassmaker'. Dieter Simon 00:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Quebecers: 7.5 million.

Number of Christians: 2.1 billion.

Number of Conservatives or Liberals: Even more (with a wide definition), impossible to precisely estimate.

It is not a valid comparison. --Liberlogos 02:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point, but 501 hits??? Even a relatively obscure British Columbian like Chris Kempling gets 11,000. Deet 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind Google, and the whole internet, are biased towards English, we even have a WP article about English on the Internet. There are plenty of examples of anti-French Quebecker sentiment that may never mention the words "Quebec bashing". The article should be about the phenomenon and not the usage of the term. PS there is certainly also some Alberta bashing that goes on in the Quebec (and Ontario media), that’s just the nature of the Canadian federation. But I agree this is a more necessary article. PSS still think this article needs to acknowledge the link between US French-bashing. Kevlar67 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples

How many examples does one need? Surely examples should be by prominent people such as Richler, Francis, and prominent politicians such as Mowat, Klien, etc. I'm not saying that the ones I've tried to delete aren't true - but are they important? And what's with the stubs. Simply mention them earlier (though I can't say I've ever heard of any of these people) - and if necessary add a section when there is text. Why keep stubs in the text, with absolutely no text? Nfitz 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we delete examples of anti-semitism (again, not a direct comparison between the two) because they were perpetrated by non-prominent people? The article states that these are things called anti-Quebec by people; which is correct, they were called that way. It shows the argument of the people who say there is a trend. If we must, a mention that a writer is not prominent (we'd have to find the correct phrasing) could be added to such people. Also, if the writers are not prominent, the controversies are. --Liberlogos 06:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One could mention a list of items by non-prominent people, but having article-length sub-sections for each non-prominent person seems overkill to me. And I'm unsure why semitism or anti-semitism is relevent, and requires any mention in this article at all? I've never heard any connection between "bashing Quebec" and anti-semitism ... or pro-semitism! Nfitz 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What about these stubs? If nothing else, an example stub, with no text at all, should be removed. The article is already longer than the recommended length, and needs to be distilled. Perhaps any more examples (perhaps any examples) should go on the page for each person, with a link here. Nfitz 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to object, so I'm removing the stubs. Nfitz 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Wouldn't Criticism of Quebec be a more well-rounded title, and less POV? It gets 4,140 results at google.ca compared to 660 for "Quebec bashing" Nfitz 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement, although it's still a bit strange because it's so general (i.e., not about one specific topic). I typed in Criticism of the United States (in three different ways), and there is no article like that. Normally such an article would be specific to a topic, not an entire geography/province/country. Deet 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Quebec wouldn't do, because a criticism is by default reasonable, not unjustified. I get different results for "Quebec Bashing" (with quotation marks, of course) on google, depending on a few factors: first, my general google shows 550, Google Canada 661, then when I click francophone pages, I get 756, and if I select Pages: Canada, I get 1440... 69.156.73.134 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't bashing of Quebec be justified? We bash the USA all the time, and it's quite justified! :-). Perhaps this is my problem then ... the article seems to be collecting all the unjustified criticism about Quebec (though the unjustification is in the view of the beholder). Why shouldn't the article not be a collection of both the justified and unjustifed criticism. There are other precedent Criticism of Microsoft is one (and they are bigger than most nations!) Nfitz 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is more closely related to Anti-Americanism, Anti-Canadianism, and Francophobia than criticism of a business. Kevlar67 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Another issue that seems to be here, that although the phrase "Quebec bashing" seems to be commonly used in the French-language media in the province of Quebec, it doesn't seem to be used, as a phrase, in English - and the concept is quite foreign to anyone speaking English. Perhaps the simple answer is to simply move this to the French Wikipedia? I note the article there is merely a stub; perhaps if the article was written, and distilled there, it would be easier to then translate it back to English. Nfitz 17:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed but the English Wikipedia has TONS of articles on topics imported from other languages. No reason why this should offer any special challenges.Kevlar67 00:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No reason at all - in fact it's great. And I'm not unconvinced that this article shouldn't be here; however my attempts to do anything other than superficial changes have been rebuffed ... I can't even remove all those emtpy stubs without getting reverted. If people are willing to work together to make the article better, it should stay; but if people are going to object to the removal of even the most trivial example (and I'm thinking Howard Stern here ... who probably doesn't even know where Quebec is ...) then perhaps it needs to go. The other issue is what to call the article; there is definitely a perception within Quebec that they are being bashed; but the perception elsewhere is that they are bashed no more than anyone else is ... so is Quebec Bashing the correct title? To balance out the article, there needs to be some discussion of whether this bashing is real, or just perceived ... though Quebecers don't seem to have any motivation to investigate this - and it's such a non-issue elsewhere in Canada that it's unlikely anyones really looked into it. In my experience, the French population in Quebec does seem hyper-sensitive to criticism at an insitutional level; be it of the government, society in general, or even when criticism targets particular insitutions ... remember the backlash after the Anglophone media went after the Montreal police force for their failures in the massacre at UdM in the 1980s ... though in retrospect, with the great success of the police at Dawson, under the new operating procedures brought in as a result of the UdM massacre, it appears that the media comments were justified ... my point here is there seem to be sacred cows in Quebec society, that the Francophone media tends to avoid, but the English media will tackle head on ... and this perhaps is the cause of much of the perception of bashing ... though how one discusses this in the article without starting original research is beyond me! Nfitz 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I object to removing them. Sorry for forgetting to comment. The article is not complete without those sections: therefor, the readers will know that the portrait is not complete. It helps editors and invites collaboration. Why do you think the template exists? Why do you ojject to the stubs so much? --Liberlogos 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just seems a waste of space ... also I'm concerned that the article is already too long, and is generating warnings about length; it should be distilled at this point, not lengthened. I'm concerned that all these unknown people are being referenced ... don't see the need for that, why not be quoting well known people, such as politicians? What about Oliver Mowat, he must have said a few things ... or John Crosbie? Nfitz 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hit count going up

Doing an advanced search asking for the exact phrase of Quebec bashing alone, we now get 727 hits (www.google.ca) -- Mathieugp 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good source on the topic

• Jean-François Lisée, Review of "Why Canadian Unity Matters and Why Americans Care — Democratic Pluralism at Risk" by Charles F. Doran, University of Toronto Press, 2002

Quote: "Ignorance about Quebec is in very large supply in the rest of the continent. Ignorance, outdated views, prejudice. As a correspondent in Washington for Quebec media for five years in the 1980s, then while researching 30 years of U.S. political, diplomatic, financial and media attention toward Quebec for a book on the topic, I have seen the worst, and also some of the best.

Given that background, Charles Doran's recent take on the impact of a Quebec secession on liberal democracies is clearly above par."

And

"The Quebec he speaks of is the “modern, liberal, democratic, urban (and urbane) society” in which I happen to live. He goes so far as to write that today’s Quebeckers “often espouse values even more liberal than those of the Americans or of their English Canadian counterparts,” which is certainly true on a whole range of social issues, from abortion to women and gay rights." -- Mathieugp 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What does ignorance have to do with bashing though ... (i.e. what does he say about bashing?)? I'm pretty ignorant about Ecuadorian society ... but I'm not bashing it. I certainly agree with the last quote, it matches my experiences ... but how is that relevent to the article? Nfitz 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking this question? What does ignorance have to do with bashing Quebec? Media that pretend to inform and give an educated opinion on some issue are expected to seek facts, respect their existence, not make abstraction of it and write fiction. I think you are missing the important point here that people are complaining about the bashing on Quebec in the Anglophone press of Canada because the recurrent accusations are 1) NOT FOUNDED ON FACTS and 2) follow patterns typical of HATE LITERATURE where an ENTIRE community is depicted as being more A, B, C and D because of its linguistic/ethnic/religious/else difference. In other words, it is HATEFUL RACISM in disguise.

JF Lisee is referring to the impact the very phenomenon we are discussing here is having in the USA, even in the academic circle! For 10 years, the same media have been depicting Quebec in such a way that many people now believe that there may actually be factual grounds for insane ideas such as A) Quebecers are more anti-semitic than Canadians B) Quebec has a special history of antisemitism C) there is a hardline of intolerant xenophobic bastards at the core of the nationalist movement etc. A distorted image of Canada's only French-speaking province is imprinted in the minds of millions of English-speaking people in Canada and elsewhere. That is called propaganda and defamation. -- Mathieugp 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to also write: "Are you seriously asking this question?" One of the first things they teach you about prejudice is that it grows from ignorance. Repectfully, I ask: did you miss that lecture? --Liberlogos 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion process not justified

BY THE WAY: Wikipedia's Deletion policy explicitely states, under "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed", that if an article is "biased or has lots of POV", the solution is to "list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention". People who support deletion: find a better reason. POVs, even when there are a lot of them, are not a valid reason to suggest deletion. I think this should close the issue.

Who wants to remove the tag? -- Mathieugp 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Even if one 100% knows the outcome of the deletion discussion one can not remove the tag, until the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec bashing is closed. AIUI only a moderator can carry that out. Nfitz 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, looking at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and following the instructions, it appears the procedure for an article that is "biased or has lots of POV" would be to go to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How to initiate and NPOV debate and end up tagging the article with the

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

However, I did just that twice, at the start of this debate 4 days go, only to have User:Liberlogos remove the tag very quickly both times. So we tried that one once, before someone else nominated it for deletion. Can't have it both ways here ... Nfitz 23:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The first time, I checked the talk page and saw no explanation, so I thought it was a newbie that didn't know how bias templates work, or someone that just wanted to put sand in the gears for slanted reasons, so I removed it. I later checked the histories and found to my surprise that you seemed to write your section about the dispute about at the same time as you added the template, which seems to indicate an error or computer problem on my side, which is a shame. The second time, you had already explained your objections in more than one post and I came to the conclusion that there was not a single NPOV issue raised, to which you agreed, and that this template was not the one appropriate. --Liberlogos 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it shouldn't have been you removing the NPOV template - certainly not so quickly. Nfitz 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

a bit of a change of approach

I would suggest that this article needs to be focused a little. Right now parts of it read more like an essay than an encyclopedia. I'm thinking specifically about the Mordecai Richler section, and some of the other sections focusing on authors. I think that there's to many direct quotations from articles, asides, and refutations going on. It definetely reads in a POV way, seemingly trying to prove that Richler was wrong. I would suggest that this article should focus more on the broader outlines, and cite these authors as examples, in a fairly limited way. If we start to quote extensively from every commentator ever accused of Quebec-bashing, as well as their critics, this article is going to get unwieldy very quickly. (Its already longer than the suggested maximum) I would do this now, but given the sensitivity of the issue, will await comment. Perhaps the more detailed discussions could be moved to the article about the commentator in question. Peregrine981 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that this is a term which is certainly used, but it is not used with any sort of uniform meaning to describe a clearly delineable set of facts.

The second biggest problem is that there has been no reasonable attempt to identify any reasonable, clear-cut definition, and to stick to it, and instead it has itself become a "bashing" of anyone who has ever said anything critical of Quebec or been accused of having done so. Gene Nygaard 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this is true, and I've been a bit confused about it myself. It seems to apply interchangeably between quasi-racist statements, simple stereotyping, to criticisms of policies, the nationalist and sovereignist movement, the Quebec "establishment", the national character, and specific politicians. Is all of this Quebec-bashing? It also seems to treat the whole episode in a bit of a vacuum, not taking into account the negative things said about almost all parts of Canada at one time or another, ie... the "culture of defeatism" and such about Atlantic Canada, "let the eastern bastard freeze" and various anti-Ontario commentaries, regular attacks on the hickery of Albertans, lazy Indians, etc... Peregrine981 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should define what as been denounced has Quebec bashing in the media. I don't agree with cutting down on the quotations though for one good reason: most of the sources are in French. If we don't provide those quotes, most readers will be unable to verify the accuracy of the article. Is the article getting too long? Yes. The solution is to gradually move the Wong case to its own article, the Quebecistan case to its own article etc. The "Context" section is needed, but right now it does not make sense. Of course the context is the history of Quebec, but history is always the greater context of everything. I think we need to narrow it down the more recent political history, namely the 1995 referendum, what was called Ottawa's Plan B which lead to the sponsorship scandal a few years later. The biggest issue though remains the neutrality problem.

Like Peregrine981 wrote "It definetely reads in a POV way, seemingly trying to prove that Richler was wrong." The problem is that Richler actually made a number of important factual errors, we know it and we cannot make it clear by proving it because it would be original research I guess. We are stuck using quotes of others (JF Lisee, Lester, Conlogue) who denounced the inaccuracy of the facts in Richler's thesises and the severely flawed interpretation he makes of issues and events he poorly reseached and subjects he clearly doesn't master at all (law, nationalism etc.). This just goes to show how much damage Quebec bashing does: we can't even counteract it because anything that we say or write in return will be taken for "another point of view" and nothing more. The widespread denounciation is not only there because people feel the bashing is unfair and tainted with prejudice and even racism, but because it is sometimes so incorrect on the facts that it is shocking to read it in mainstream newspapers and not on Joe Blow's personal blog. -- Mathieugp 12:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think that many of the quotes should be removed, unless we can warrant making a whole seperate article on the topic. It becomes too much of a "he said, she said" thing than a summary of the issue. Whether or not people can read French is their problem. There are enough editors who do to verify the links' accuracy. Many articles on wikipedia cite articles in different languages where the sources do not exist in English. If Richler's facts are verifiably wrong, we should just say so, and cite the apporpriate source, while still presenting his POV in a fair way. It is also fair to say that his ideas are widely discredited if that is true. Peregrine981 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hit count now at 855

• Doing an advanced search asking for the 'exact phrase of "Quebec bashing", we now get 855 hits (www.google.ca)
• Same result when asking for the 'exact phrase of "Quebec-bashing". -- Mathieugp 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And not one of them particularly helpful in understanding what the term means.

But 602 for

"Quebec bashing" -Wikipedia -site:wikipedia.org

and 584 if English language also chosen (though I'd say that's a very unreliable limiting factor).

So don't be trying to imply any significant change from earlier numbers. Rather, it is more an indication of activity by you and others on a large number of pages here on Wikipedia, and them being propogated to numerous mirror sites. Gene Nygaard 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I counted only 6 hits related to Wikipedia out of the 855 on www.google.ca. Everyone is invited to verify this by themselves. Searching for "Quebec bashing" on wikipedia.org alone returns 51 hits (again using www.google.ca). -- Mathieugp 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Now at 963 hits. --Liberlogos 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Only in the media?

According to the opening paragraph, this phenomenon is restricted to the "media". Does this mean that politicians or individuals making anti-Quebec slurs are not Quebec bashing? Peregrine981 18:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd say the media are allowing us to see only a reflection of the social phenomenon. The media is the amplifier and the distorter. I will try to get my hands on a copy of Maryse Potvin's article "Les dérapages racistes à l’égard du Québec au Canada anglais depuis 1995" published in Politique et Sociétés, Vol. 18, no 2, 1999. Here is the abstract of her article taken from the Website of UQAM's Politique et Sociétés journal:

"This article analyses, from a selection of newspapers articles, some “racist accusations” that were expressed in English Canada since the 1995 referendum. Examining several events in the media (“cases” Rakoff, Lawrence Martin, Diane Francis, Gerry Weiner, David Levine…), this analysis shows how marginalized discourses went throught severals stages of racism (Wieviorka, 1991), leading to a slightly more systematic racist opinion within the “Rest of Canada” and to a verbal violence that occurs often enough that the problem can no longer be considered secondary. In a particular case (Levine case), racism even became a principle for action and mobilization which reached several (journalistic, political, popular) spheres of society. To illustrate the spread, the banalization and the legitimization of a certain racist discourse (which uses universal arguments to delegitimize the “Other”), the analysis emphasizes the link between discourse and theory in light of recent scientific works which define the structure, the discursive elements and the mechanisms for the production of racism."

Source: http://www.unites.uqam.ca/sqsp/revPolSo/vol18_2/vol18_no2_potvin.htm

A 2001 Le Devoir article by journalist Robert Dutrisac (http://www.vigile.net/dossier-medias/1-11/01-11-24-ld.html) says 1) that the same year (1999) she published and English translation of her article in the Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal (I don't know under what title though) and 2) that at the time of the writing of the article (2001) she was about to publish a more thorough article based on the analysis of over 1000 newspaper articles between 1995 and 1999. That would be the ultimate source of information I think. For sure she gives a solid description of what "Quebec bashing" is. -- Mathieugp 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

I keep saying this article needs to be distilled - but it seems to me we have dilution happening instead! At the rate we are going, there needs to be a subarticle - Examples of Quebec-bashing Nfitz 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition

We still don't have an agreed on definition, so I will propose one, feel free to add to it edit it and change it.

Quebec bashing is a negative portrayal of Quebec society, unfounded in fact. It is primarily, but not exclusively used in regard to French speaking Quebec society.

Peregrine981 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that is quite it. One reason why people noticed the phenomenon is that it is repetitive and follows patterns. I don't think there would be much of a point to this article if there had been just one or two isolated incidents of "negative portrayal of Quebec society, unfounded in fact". These could simply be named errors and be laughed at. Many people saw a trend and that is why they took a closer look at the phenomenon to try to understand it. Once I have had the chance to read either one of Maryse Potvin's articles on the subject, I'll come back to you and report on what she wrote. -- Mathieugp 21:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. How does this defintion preclude the phenomenon being repetitive and following patterns? Peregrine981 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That the term is in use is without question. However, what exactly is meant by "Quebec bashing" is up for debate. As yet I have not been able to find any definition of the term outside of this article. Unless one is found I fear this whole entry is in danger of being perceived as original research. Victoriagirl 01:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have gotten my hands on a copy of Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998 by Maryse Potvin. I am quoting it here extensively so you don't get my interpretation by hers. I have however bolded some phrases. In the article, the term "slip" is used to translate the French dérapage and refers to individual discourses that make up what we today call Quebec bashing. In note 7, she defines what slips are in her article:

"The term "slip" will be used to indicate those dicourses that exceed the limits of "reasonable" democratic discourse. Some of the discourses were made into an issue by media in recent years. These discourses are slips insofar as, under analysis, they betray racializing tendencies and certain, sometimes mythical, elements of "national identity". END OF Note 7"

"[...] Until recently these slips had been limited to a number of extremist prejudices - usually marginalized by the media - voiced by individuals such as Mordecai Richler, Mel Hurtig, and Howard Galganov. In recent months, they have been coming from several other sources: Dr. Vivian Rakoff, and "eminent psychiatrist", according to The Globe and Mail (August 23, 1997), who drew up a psychological profile of Lucien Bouchard; the journalist, Lawrence Martin, in his biography of Lucien Bouchard; former federal Minister of Immigration, Gerry Weiner, who claims that the French language is used as a racist immigration-selection criterion to create an "ethnocentric francophone enclave"; editorials by Diane Francis in the Financial Post and her works, which speak of a "separatist conspiracy"; Saturday Night with its sensationalist articles about Lucien Bouchard's neurons; another former federal minister, Doug Young, who wants to send sovereignist immigrants "back to where they came from"; the Reform Party during its last election campaign against Quebec's political leaders; the populist discourses and demonstrations of some Ottawa citizens during the "Levine Affair", which was supported by some politicians (including Mike Harris); not to mention the Nazification of sovereignists on the Internet or in letters by readers, and Howard Stern's racist jokes about francophones on Montreal radio station CHOM-FM, which contribute to making racism commonplace."

"[...] The purpose of this article is simply to underline, without falling into "political correctness", the fact that some ethnicist, even racist, slips have occupied an increasingly large public space since the 1995 referendum, without having been the object of sufficiently quick criticisms or of strong and repeated condemnations by the English-Canadian press, intellectuals, or politicians."

"[...] In analyzing the slips which appear to be the most excessive, are we not playing the same game as the media? The danger is certainly there, but we must remember that racist discourse first occurs in marginal spaces before it expands and becomes banal (Wieviorka 1991). In Canada, these slips seem to have moved up several racist levels in a few months. Marginal discourses have, in fact, given way to more systematic racist opinions in the rest of Canada, and to a form of verbal violence which is repetitive enough that the problem can no longer be considered secondary. In the "Levine Affair", racism even became an action and a mobilizing principle among a section of the population and was subsequently legitimized by some politicians. But, the dangers lurking behind the breakdown of universalist ideals into racialized discourses are, first, making racism a commonplace in popular discourses, followed by its gelling into irreducible identities, and, finally, its use as a "political weapon" (Arendt 1982)."

I think this should help us figure out what should be written for a definition in our article. I have Maryse Potvin's e-mail address so if we need to clarify anything, I can contact here. -- Mathieugp 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While I recognize your effort, I note that the term "Quebec bashing" is used at no point in the article quoted. The suggestion that Maryse Portvin might be contacted by email is clearly a violation of WP:NOR. My opinion is that the term might be applied to those both inside and outside media circles - however, at Wikipedia personal opinions count for naught.Victoriagirl 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed the expression "Quebec bashing" was used in this article. The reason for my posting of an excerpt of Maryse Potvin's article is simple. User Peregrine981 proposed a definition for Quebec bashing that I found to be too general, so I told her I would get my hands on Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998 which I did. The article is a valid source that is directly related to the topic of the article. The term Quebec bashing having never been, to my knowledge, explicitely defined by people using it (mostly journalists and other media commentators who assume an implicit knowledge of the issue by their readers), we are forced to write a reasonable definition ourselves based on 1) the meaning that is conveyed by the words "Quebec" and "bashing" and 2) all reputable sources we can get our hands on. Maryse Potvin's article contains an explicit definition of "slips", the English term chosen to translate dérapages, the French term she chose for individual discourses sliding off the boundaries of "reasonable" democratic debate. So, yes that is not quite what we are looking for. However, if she can be of any help to us in finding a more "formal" definition of Quebec bashing, we should surely not hesitate to contact her to clarify all this. Doing it would be doing the very opposite of making something up to fill the void (i.e. original research). I have a list of about 6 or 7 other potential sources, but I don't have the time and energy to read hundreds of pages to find a stupid definition if a simple e-mail reply can tell me exactly where to look. :-) -- Mathieugp 20:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I offer an apology. My observation that contacting Ms Potvin would be a violation of WP:NOR was based on my reading of the word "clarify". Here, I thought you were referring specifically to the possibility of Ms Potvin providing some sort of input towards defining "Quebec bashing". I will be very pleased if she, or anyone else, can point us in the direction of a reference in which the term is defined. Victoriagirl 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I guess using "clarify" wasn't very "clear" on my part. ;-) I will send her an e-mail asking her where to look for a source that bothered to define "Quebec bashing", assuming it has been done. -- Mathieugp 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got an Out-of-Office AutoReply. Miss Potvin will be back on October 8th... Darn. -- Mathieugp 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do acknowledge the recently placed reference for the term "Quebec bashing"[13]. It may be that my French simply isn't good enough, but I don't see that it indicates one way or another that the term is to be used exclusively when discussing selected writings or other commentary by the media. Victoriagirl 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we have Larose using Quebec bashing as synonymous with salissage. He's not the only one doing this. This is getting confusing with so many people using different terms (in two languages)! -- Mathieugp 20:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

clearing something up

"The Council did not retain the complaint but found the amalgamation to be inappropriate."

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by amalgamation here. The article? Peregrine981 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

amalgamation here refers to associations that are flawed from a logical standpoint. Here is a clear example : "Adolf Hitler was a Nazi. Adolf Hitler had a mustache. You have a mustache, therefore you are a Nazi!". Here, having a mustache and being a Nazi are combined (amalgamated) in a way that implies a connection between the two when obviously there isn't one.

The July 22, 2002 press release of the Conseil de presse du Québec reads : "[...] Me Dansereau moreover recalls that this paragraph was published in November 2001, only one month after the events of September 11. One has thus the right to think that the journalist practised a process known as amalgame, which aims at discrediting those we are attacking by associating them to a reality that is perceived negatively. [...]"

I recommend everyone reading the article Fallacy to get better at detecting sophistry in the speech and writing of our favorite politicans ;-). -- Mathieugp 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking the time to do it right

Just to let all contributors know I am working on two articles, one on Affaire Michaud, the other on the Controverse Delisle-Richler Both are incomplete, but once they are in better shape, they will be translated to English and eventually moved to Michaud Affair and Delisle-Richler Controversy.

Many other cases listed in this article could have their own pages like that. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don Cherry

I am for this article being kept, and I am not a fan of Don Cherry, but I think that one of the improvements would be to delete the Don Cherry section. Unless I am mistaken, he's expressed prejudice against and has insulted Québécois and European NHL players. I don't think he's ever "bashed" Quebec society as a whole. I would say Cherry is certainly prejudiced, arguably racist, but not a Quebec basher. Quebec bashing, in my opinion is to denigrate Quebec as a society, usually claiming it is significantly more racist and segregated than the rest of North America, and even sometimes claiming that it is inherently so (because of cultural traits and the history of French Canadians). 70.50.2.80 02:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a common misconception. This is not an article that judges what is "Quebec bashing", it enumerates what has been popularily called "Quebec bashing" (note the quotation marks). I have for example put in a section for the Late Night with Conan O'Brien (with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog) controversy even if I don't exactely agree that it was "Quebec bashing", but it's not up to me to judge, it is to the reader. "Quebec bashing" is understood as Quebecois "bashing". --Liberlogos 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point, but not completely. We have to watch out for potential hyperbole. Sometimes people will make accusations that aren't entirely accurate, so we should watch out for that. Peregrine981 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I understand that some people use the term Quebec Bashing more widely than others, but there is definitely a qualitative difference between on one hand Jan Wong and Diane Francis (intellectuals, journalist, who try to make a case against Quebec as a society, with its history, laws and traditions), and, on the other hand, entertainers such as Don Cherry and O'Brien (or more accurately, his scripters) who have just insulted Quebecers for one reason or another, whether punctually or repeatedly. At the very least, I think the article should distinguish between these two uses of the term. This is what, I believe, has made some people vote against the article, arguing it is incoherent. As a Quebecer, I strongly feel that we need this article on Wikipedia, but we're not doing anybody a favor by letting it be such a hotchpotch, and I can see how someone who has not been in touch with the phenomenon can question the relevence of the article in its current state. We're also allowing certain people to say "see, Quebec Bashing is non sense" 132.212.92.162 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don Cherry is a very popular Quebec basher (made the top 10 in the Greatest Canadian list), and the section should stay in. I think the term Quebec-bashing is misapplied much of the time (if not most), but it certainly applies to Cherry, who's watched by millions of people.

However, there is a question about why he's popular, and it could be dealt with here. A lot of people watch to hate him – if you've ever watched him in a public place in English Canada you've probably seen people yelling at the screen while he's on. So people Cherry-bash in part because he Quebec-bashes. So perhaps the point is that the English CBC exploits Quebec-bashing; you wonder how his diatribes fit in with their mandate. Of course, a lot of people think Cherry's right about anything. John FitzGerald 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mordecai et al...

Can we all agree that the article is getting longer and longer and is already too long? How are we going to break up the article? Should we follow the previous suggestion and make an "examples of quebec bashing" page, or make seperate sub pages for each example? I'm in favour of the "examples" page. Peregrine981 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of at least splitting the examples in two categories (see the Don Cherry section above). Personally, I wouldn't give Cherry, Howard Stern or the Late Nite Show their own sections. I'd just add a section about "other attacks on Quebec or Quebecers", and mention these incidents, saying that some people consider these to also be cases of Quebec Bashing. Currently, I think the article lacks focus on Diane Francis, Jan Wong, Barbara Kay and Mordechai Richler, who have attacked Quebec as a society. Cases like Lafferty and Lawrence Martin, I guess, fall in between. 132.212.92.162 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to moving example cases to their own pages, especially the long Jan Wong and Barbary Kay ones. I also agree that there is a distinction to be made between the opinion makers of the Canadian press that are participating first hand to the political war against the Quebec sovereignty movement no matter what the collateral damages might be on Quebec as a whole and like you say "entertainers" who just surf the wave of popular prejudice against anything "French" be it from France or America. -- Mathieugp 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Richler apology

According to my source, beyond two solitudes by Donald Smith, Richler did apologize for the PQ song incident and admitted to it being an "embarassing gaffe". Does anyone object to changing the text to reflect this? Peregrine981 01:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does Donald Smith say exactly? Who did he apologize to? I was under the impression he admitted to this error in his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!. -- Mathieugp 02:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He just says, "Once, in the Atlantic Monthly he mistook the melody of a PQ rallying song for a Hitler youth tune, but later apologized for his "embarassing gaffe.""

That's all. Peregrine981 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why This "Article" is Absurd: A Comparison to Borat

To put this purported "article" in its proper perspective see: "Kazakhstan's War of Words Against Borat." (See my comments about this at the deletion debate page.)

--Lance6968 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that perhaps you have had a laugh à la Borat, (in our context "Richler"); here is the truth about Kazakhstan, (in our case "Quebec"): "Maybe Borat Would be Better."

The key difference between Borat and Richler, however, is that Borat is a fictional character and a comic act suffused with hyperbole (with very serious social criticism interwoven into the act); whereas Richler was a very real person who was speaking out for the residents of the province of Quebec who were being victimized by the French supremacist and rampant, then and still existing, antisemitism in Quebec.

--Lance6968 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"whereas Richler was a very real person": You have successfully defeated your own argument and I congratulate you. This comparison is "clownesque". Moreover, the controversy around Borat, of which I am well aware of (I appreciate the show, which has unearthed and denounced, through irony, real anti-semitism, not jingles for banking advertisements), is treated profusely in Borat#Controversy and Da Ali G Show#Controversy. I will point out this similarity between the two: as the Borat article states, "almost all of his statements about that nation are false". Now I ask: who's watching "silly television shows"? --Liberlogos 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "not jingles for banking advertisements"? As for "almost all of his statements about that nation are false," I dispute that; but, regardless, you seem to miss the point. This is not just "silly" comedy, as you claim, but serious social commentary; therefore, your "clownesque" description is unfairly dissmissive.

--Lance6968 08:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Richler took a PQ song originally made for an ad for the Caisses populaires Desjardins and portrayed it as a Nazi song. I wrote that in my rebuttal on this page and in the article; are you reading this? "Silly" was your word about another serious social commentary. You discredit and shame yourself with your accusations of supremacism and insult all people, especially our Jewish sisters and brothers, who suffered under supremacist regimes. Your discourse is hateful and shows the elements of the racist concept that one group has less of a right than others (you speak of "illegitimacy") to govern itself and not have its culture annihilated. --Liberlogos 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On the definition and the naming of the article

OK, here are my thoughts on the definition:

• "Quebec bashing" is an expression, although never rigourously defined, that is used by journalists and media commentators to refer to a trend of discourses, relayed by the mainstream English language media (newpapers, radio, tv, magazines, books) of Canada in large supply since 1995. The discourses, coming from journalists, writers, politicians etc., are judged to be unacceptable on the grounds that they are believed to be, depending on the case, 1) not based on facts 2) defamatory to individuals (some of whom took it seriously enough to go to court) 3) prejudiced and even 4) racist despite hiding behind universel arguments.
• The trend of discourses was denounced by various people as was also denounced the fact that there the discourses have not been "the object of sufficiently quick criticisms or of strong and repeated condemnations by the English-Canadian press, intellectuals, or politicians." (see above quote of Maryse Potvin's article). The denounciation of Jan Wong's article by 1) Prime Minister of Canada of Canada Stephen Harper 2) Premier of Quebec Jean Charest and 3) members of the Canadian House of Commons marked a change in the attitude of many people with regards to the phenomenon which is started to be recognized more widely, although still denied.

On the naming of the article:

• "Quebec bashing" seems to be a source of problem and I think it should be abandonned as the main title, but kept as a secondary one, noting it is very common to refer to what we are talking about here using this term in French.
• "Anti-Quebecois sentiment" would be far too general. The "Quebec bashing" phenomeon would be only one example of centuries of such a "sentiment" if we can call it that. People who complain of the lenght of the article should consider how impossibly long it would become if renamed to that.
• Criticism of Quebec would also be too general. There are millions of justified reasons to criticize Quebec. I know I do it all the time. A common prejudice being that "Quebecers are a bunch of whiners" seems to be the reason why some people also think Quebec doesn't like being criticized at all.
• "Anti-Quebec media bias" might be on the right track, only that is not precisely the subject. Could we not have "Anti-Quebec discourses in the Canadian media"?

-- Mathieugp 13:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• "thoughts on the definition": Interesting. The fact that the expression is also popularly used on the streets should be mentioned also, but I understand the importance of underlining the fact that the media uses it. Also, some minor NPOVing would be needed if this were to go in the body of the article.
• "'Quebec bashing' [...] should be abandonned as the main title, but kept as a secondary one": That's certainly an option, but I still defend the current title.
• "'Anti-Quebecois sentiment' would be far too general.": Ditto. That includes the Montreal Riots and the Parliament of Montreal burning in reaction to the Rebellion Losses Bill, the Klu Klux Klan dedicated to fight Franco Americans in New England, "Speak White", French Quebecers being at the bottom of ethnic groups in terms of wealth before the Quiet Revolution, etc.
• "Criticism of Quebec would also be too general. There are millions of justified reasons to criticize Quebec.": reDitto. *That* would make the article biased; imagine!: "Criticism of Quebec has been denounced as defamatory, dishonest...". That's the idea it would give.
• "'Anti-Quebec media bias' might be on the right track, only that is not precisely the subject. Could we not have 'Anti-Quebec discourses in the Canadian media'?": Your suggestion is not bad, but it is also including much. You know like me that, with this title, we have to rake up all the hateful articles from the 18th century (example: "To have tranquility, we must make solitude; let us wipe the Canadiens [French Quebecers] from the face of the Earth." - The Montreal Herald, November 14, 1838, cited in Le Livre noir du Canada anglais, p.101). That would make the article even longer. A title could be "Anti-Quebecois sentiment in the media after the Quiet Revolution", but it's bulky and only shows how "Quebec bashing" is preferable, since the article *examines* the phenomenon of accusations of "Quebec bashing". --Liberlogos 14:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. How about Contemporary Anti-Quebec discourses in the Canadian media or simply Anti-Quebec discourses in the Canadian media since 1995? That would narrow it down. -- Mathieugp 15:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Canadian" is to be excluded because the article (and "Quebec bashing" accusations) deals with the international media, from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, etc. Removing that will also make the title shorter. We would have to write "discourse" without an "s". Also, keeping "sentiment" would be in better harmony with the future more general article "Anti-Quebecois sentiment". With "Anti-Quebec", examples will be attacked whenever the Quebec State will not be the primary target of said examples; "Anti-Quebecois" is therefor preferable. "Contemporary" is an interesting idea. Then, another suggestion would be "Anti-Quebecois sentiment in contemporary media". --Liberlogos 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of discourse is more appropriate than sentiment. We can't write "Anti-Quebecois" as it will imply attacks on Francophone Quebecers alone, which is not the case here. Are being attacked institutions (The Charter of the French language, the OQLF, the Quebec Flag etc) and Quebecers who would generally not be considered Quebecois (in the English sense of the word). Anti-Quebec discourse in the media since 1995 would get my vote. -- Mathieugp 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"since 1995": we'll have to scrap things like Oh Canada Oh Quebec (1992), various articles by Richler (even earlier) and Lafferty (1993). No, those are linked to what happened after 1995. "Quebecois" would be used as the only adjective we have (in this language; oh why didn't we find an adjective) that includes the Quebec State and its inhabitants. "Quebecois" meant to signify a French-speaker is an interpretation but not the only meaning. Anglo-Quebecers are Quebecois. At the same time, I'm getting won by "discourse", though. If we use discourse, we could remove "media" altogether, giving something like "Anti-Quebecois contemporary discourse", a much tighter title (so many t's). --Liberlogos 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we must scrap most of the examples. An endless list of examples is not encylopedic - simply refer to existing research that already has the examples, or list the existing pages that have these examples. Nfitz 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is getting a bit ridiculous. Are we really going to have an article focusing exclusively on anti-Quebec media discourses since 1995? This seems absurdly specific for an encyclopedia article. There isn't even an overview article about "anti-Quebec" sentiments in general yet. Shouldn't we work on that before whittling down to this specific article? Or are we going to create a whole series of articles detailing the various periods of anti-Quebec sentiment, both in the media and in "the real world"? This would fracture the information and make it much harder to keep track of and manage. If you want to write long detailed series of articles on this subject, I suggest getting your own website. For now I suggest we create an "anti-Quebec" article, along the lines of the dozens and dozens of other "anti-national" pages on wikipedia, rather than going off on this tangent. That should eliminate a lot of the acrimony over the article too. Peregrine981 04:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "since 1995" would exclude the Delisle-Richler controversy which is one of the better examples. Therefore, my suggestion of Anti-Quebec discourse in the media since 1995 cannot get my vote anymore. :-) Anglo-Quebecers are Quebecois only if Québécois in French in the text. In English, when Quebecois is used, it more often than else excludes non-francophones. It is synonymous with Franco-Quebecers. I don't agree because it contributes to the ethnicization of our body politic, but that's the way it is. Contemporary Anti-Quebec discourse in the media? -- Mathieugp 20:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I note the new definition of "Quebec bashing"; however, as the reference provided fails to address the current definition, I have inserted a citation request. That said, as a matter of good faith I have left the reference in place. Victoriagirl 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition citation

On September 30 I placed a citation request at the end of the opening sentence in which a definition of "Quebec bashing" is provided.[14] There has been considerable discussion as to what exactly is meant by "Quebec bashing", both on this page[15] [16] [17] [18] and as part of the AfD nomination [19]. As stated in numerous discussions, it would seem that there is no definition of the term provided outside of this article - meaning that the definition is the creation of Wikipedians. In my opininion, the creation of a definition - and subsequent attempts at reaching a consensus (which does not appear to be forthcoming) around which an article might be built - amounts to original research.

My citation request has twice been removed and replaced with a reference in which two individuals claim that Quebec has been criticized unfairly in the English-language media, including that of the United States. [20] [21]. As previously stated [22] (see 20:15, 30 September 2006), this reference fails to address the expressed purpose of the citation request. That Quebec - or any other political entity, has on occasion been criticized unfairly in international media has not been in dispute. Therefore, I question the re-appearance of a citation that in no way provides a definition of the term. Assuming good faith I will leave it in place, and will return my citation request. Victoriagirl 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Can someone provide an appropriate reference and stop deleting the citation request until that time! Nfitz 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation was placed back because IT was removed. The citation answered not the question of the definition BUT the question of whether it is used for *international* defamation. Bu putting it after the word "international", both that citation and the citation request can be displayed. Yes, you are right to assume good faith; it *was* in good faith. --Liberlogos 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "The citation was placed back because IT was removed" ... surely that balances out, doesn't it? Trust me, I am assuming good faith ... Nfitz 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the reference that replaced my citation request (twice) was originally intended to answer my query concerning the definition, just as my exchange with Mathieugp indicates [23] (see - 20:15, 30 September 2006 & 20:58, 30 September 2006). Again, that Quebec has been criticized on the world stage has never been challenged - nor has the fact that the term "Quebec bashing" is in use. These issues, the latter having four references, provide just two examples of the needless references plaguing this article. I note, without surprise, that today we hit triple digits.Victoriagirl 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To BE fair, *I* put it there! I KNOW WHY I PUT it there. --Liberlogos 10:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I will apologize. I quite obviously misunderstood the discussion cited. I will assume that my citation requests were removed in error.Victoriagirl 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern example

I think the use of the Howard Stern example is just not necessary. Howard Stern knows nothing about Quebec, and would insult his own mother, if he thought it would get him media coverage (he likely has). This doesn't add anything ot the article ... if anything it minimizes the legitimacy of the topic, as it is such an oddball, that it makes it look as though it is very difficult to find any good examples. It is akin to using Laurel and Hardy quotes to criticize Herbert Hoover! I suggest that this entire section be removed. Do other's agree? I know that there will be one person who disagrees, but we need some consensus here. Nfitz 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. Including Howard Stern is akin to discussing the insults of a talking dog puppet. Victoriagirl 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections, getting rid of it. Nfitz 06:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Whaaaaaa-?!? No objection; consensus?!? After 7 hours, when most didn't see this? What is your obsession with robbing us of information?? I vehemently object. --Liberlogos 10:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed above. Did you guys read it? I paste it here:

"there is definitely a qualitative difference between on one hand Jan Wong and Diane Francis (intellectuals, journalist, who try to make a case against Quebec as a society, with its history, laws and traditions), and, on the other hand, entertainers such as Don Cherry and O'Brien (or more accurately, his scripters) who have just insulted Quebecers for one reason or another, whether punctually or repeatedly. At the very least, I think the article should distinguish between these two uses of the term. This is what, I believe, has made some people vote against the article, arguing it is incoherent." From 132.212.92.162 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I replied: "I also agree that there is a distinction to be made between the opinion makers of the Canadian press that are participating first hand to the political war against the Quebec sovereignty movement no matter what the collateral damages might be on Quebec as a whole and like you say "entertainers" who just surf the wave of popular prejudice against anything "French" be it from France or America. -- Mathieugp 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)"

Now I add this: I see "a qualitative difference" between popular racist jokes against anything French and the subject of this article. However, the Don Cherrier and Conan O'Brière cases became controversial because people wondered "how has this become acceptable, politically correct to say these things in Canada"? And one possible answer is that constant bashing on Quebec and its symbols and symbols, Quebec Francophones, Quebec nationalist/nationalism created the climate allowing these racist jokes to go mainstream without being denounced (outside Quebec itself). In anycase, "Quebecistan" has nothing to do with a "talking dog puppet" so a distinction should be made, although as Liberlogos said it must be made clear in the article that they were both commonly perceived as just yet more Quebec bashing by many Quebecers. -- Mathieugp 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Were the respective comments of Cherry and O'Brien really thought to be acceptable, never mind politically correct? Was there not a public outcry against both? Were Cherry's comments not investigated by the federal Official Languages Commissioner? Did the CBC not impose a seven-second delay on his broadcasts? Goodness, I was living in Victoria at the time of both and recall denounciations in the media and criticism in discussions amongst friends. To state that these and similar statements pass without comment outside of Quebec is, to say the very least, baseless.Victoriagirl 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit I was wrong to write "without being denounced (outside Quebec itself)" This was an exaggeration. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois made sure to exploit the situation, which lead to useless political actions in Ottawa. Don Cherry had time to bash the "French wimps" on TV repeatedly before it got really too ugly and was sanctioned by late political correctness. However, what I personally remember most of the comments coming from Anglophone Canadians in both cases were "whiners from Quebec". If you can find me multiple newspaper articles saying the opposite, I'd like to read them because I never saw those from over here. Even if they are just letters from readers, I will be happy and conforted. :-) -- Mathieugp 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Got to confess, I've read this twice, and I can't figure out where either 132.212.92.162 or Mathieugp stand. Make it easy for me; Keep Stern section, or show him the door? Nfitz 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Cherry and Stern (and O'brien) were widely denounced in English Canada, in both the media and private society. At the same time, they were considered examples of Quebec bashing by some commentators, so I say leave them in, with all necessary caveats. Peregrine981 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, yes, Cherry and Stern were indeed criticized in English Canada. --Liberlogos 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

I think you should seriously consider archiving any old discussion. It's 140 kb long. That's huge. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it but not now, the first discussion is not finished. --Liberlogos 10:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vigile.net as a source

Of the 45 unique references currently listed, 21 are pages provided on the Vigile.net site. During discussions on the AfD nomination, I several times voiced my objections to the use of Vigile.net as a reference. My objections are as follows: 1) Vigile.net is a third-party source. 2) It would appear that Vigile.net is archiving articles without permission. The issue of copyright and ethics aside, the accuracy of the transciptions may be questioned. 3) Vigile.net is a website with a clear political bias (their collection of articles on Mordecai Richler, for example, is titled "Le salisseur-en-chef"). It is my opinion that the use of Vigile.net as a source runs against WP:RS guidelines. I encourage discussion on this issue. Victoriagirl 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a tough issue. Vigile certainly seems to be a partisan website, although that is not necessarily the problem. The main issue is relying on it to such an extent, and have primary sources screened through an interpreter. In my opinion we should cite the articles involved, and leave out Vigile as a third party to ensure verifiability, even if people will have to go to more trouble to verify sources. Peregrine981 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Which point of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources are we going against here?

1) Vigile.net contains a selection of articles from many paper and electronic media. We are talking about full electronic copies of articles from Le Devoir, La Presse, The Gazette, The Globe & Mail etc. These newspapers ARE the sources. There is no filter. If you believe Vigile.net altered the contents, you just have to prove it and sue them.

2) The site has been operating for over 10 years without being sued. It was reviewed by various media including Le Devoir and La Presse as far as I know. There is hardly any Quebec journalist not aware of this site I can assure you of that. If there had been any question of illegality here, the site would have been taken to court a long time ago.

3) Unlike The Globe & Mail, The National Post, The Gazette and La Presse, Vigile.net publicizes its political bias instead of pretending to present an objective POV.

4) How the site chose to name their "dossiers" and their sections is irrelevant.

5) Linking to electronic copies of articles staight from theglobeandmail.com is preferable to linking to alternative copies on anothersite.com . However, because you will not find older articles on theglobeandmail.com , the only alternative is thatothersite.com .

"In my opinion we should cite the articles involved, and leave out Vigile as a third party to ensure verifiability, even if people will have to go to more trouble to verify sources. "

I disagree. I agree we should cite the articles properly which is what we are already doing right now. We could, in the References section, mention that Vigile.net is a "third-party" source for 21 electronic copies articles linked in Quebec bashing. -- Mathieugp 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to know where to begin. My first inclination is to ask Mathieugp to consider withdrawing from this debate, as it would appear he works on Vigile.net. However, as I intend on addressing his points, to do so would be unfair. So, in response:

1) As I've written elsewhere, my belief is that Virgile.net does not edit or alter in any way the writing of the articles they archive [24] (see 21:32, 30 September 2006). However, this is a personal opinion, and as I see no evidence to the contrary, I remind myself that vis-a-vis Wikipedia articles, personal opinions do not count. To address your final point, as I am neither the copyright holder nor the author, it would seem rather silly for me to attempt any sort of lawsuit for unlawful use.

2) Nowhere on the Vigile.net website have I found any indication that the articles referenced are posted with permission of the respective publishers and/or writers - a simple statement not at all uncommon on the internet. That no media outlet has chosen to challenge this use is no indication of legality. Either the permission has been granted or it has not.

3) I think you'll see that The Globe & Mail, The National Post and La Presse express political bias each and every day of publication on their editorial pages.

4) I chose to include the name of the Richler file as an example bias - nothing more, nothing less.

5) If the reference in question is no longer found on a newspaper website, confirmation requires nothing more than a trip to a major public library or institution of higher learning. Outside Canada, I suppose one might have to query a fellow Wikipedian. Inconvenient, yes - but in no way is any this different from other thoroughly referenced Wikipedia articles.

Finally, while I'm unaware of this specific issue having been previously raised, I do believe it is covered under the "Partisan, religious and extremist websites" section of WP:RS.Victoriagirl 20:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to discuss it. "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source" - Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites And that's for using partisan site information as source. We're now talking about using an archive of newspapers that is on a website also partisan (and the archive keeps texts of all opinions), which seems even less of an issue. Is this so different from using newspapers with their own agendas as reference (for example, the right-of-center The National Post)? Not exactly the same thing, but think about it. If we rule out Vigile.net, we are robbing ourselves of a useful, veritable mine of information that was used by journalists and authors. The referenced articles are hosted on pages that display no partisan messages. As far as the link goes, the message is unbiased and unaltered. If the reader decides to peruse other places on the site, that's their grown up's decision. --Liberlogos 20:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I'll note that user Victoriagirl started her reply with a personal attack. Please read the article argumentum ad hominem to learn how by doing so she is commiting the logical fallacy of "attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself".

Second, may I ask what is the basis of user Victoriagirl's false assertion that "it would appear [I] work[] on Vigile.net"? I have been reading Vigile.net everyday almost for the past 10 years. Vigile.net does not pay its contributors, allow its readers to post more freely than any other site I know besides a public forum and is chronically out of funds forcing it to close every now and then, which just happens to be the case since yesterday (See for yourself here: http://www.vigile.net/06-10/1.html). The only things user Victoriagirl will find linking me to Vigile.net are 1) two or three personal opinion texts I wrote going back many years 2) 100$ I sent them not too long ago. I challenge user Victoriagirl to find anything else.

Third, the only valid point user Victoriagirl has made in her reply is "That no media outlet has chosen to challenge this use is no indication of legality". That is logical. Is also logical reasonable to presume it is not illegal to do what Vigile.net is doing based on the fact that La Presse, Le Devoir, The Globe & Mail etc had 10 years to take action. In any case, since Vigile.net has not yet been acused of violating the law, I do not see a valid reason not to link to the newspaper articles it is making available online. If user Victoriagirl thinks there is a valid reason, she can demonstrate it with facts and logical arguments and we will all be paying attention. I don't see where the policy violation is. If that is a policy violation, then a lot of articles are in trouble inside Wikipedia as a lot of articles rely on "third-party" electronic copies as sources. -- Mathieugp 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I regret that in my haste I read the sentence beginning "We are talking about full electronic copies..." as "We are taking full electronic copies...", and so concluded that Mathieugp "appear[ed] to work on [not at] Virgile.net." It was a clumsy error, one which I regret. However, the facts are that the user has indeed contributed to Vigile.net, in both senses of the word.

The simple fact remains, lawsuits or no, the posting of material under copyright without the holder's permission is illegal. It is not permitted on Wikipedia, it is not permitted under Canadian law. I refer those interested to Canadian Copyright Law (third edition) by Lesley Harris (Toronto:McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2001) or, if you prefer, 'The Copyright Act' [25].

The issue at hand is whether a third-party, biased or not, should be relied upon to provide accurate unauthorized transcriptions of articles included in the significant numbers of newspapers (and one magazine) cited in the entry.

Granted, my Wiki work has focused on Canadian letters, but I have yet to see a similar situation vis-a-vis references.Victoriagirl 22:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Victoriagirl-Mathieugp... "skirmish"? ;), I'll say that I think Victoriagirl has been of good faith and a number of the points she raises about Vigile are well expressed and have merit. I must however comment on something. I wonder how the idea that he "works on Vigile.net" came about (it first made me laugh, I'll admit)! He has written a handful of letters published in the "Tribune libre" section of the site. That's the equivalent of a newspaper's reader's page. People write letters to papers all the time — that's a common citizen's right — and that would not exclude them from voicing their opinion about the value of said paper. On the contrary, Mathieugp knows the site well enough to give an informed opinion on it. --Liberlogos 21:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, can someone tell me more about vigle.net? I've never looked before, and just jumped to http://www.vigile.net/plan/quebec-bashing.html which starts with Canada: un environnement malsain pour les Québécois. Quand canadien rime avec crétin (rough translation, Canada: an unhealthy place for Quebecers. When Canadian rhymes with moron). And my first reaction is this some kind of hate site? If so, we should avoid all links to a site like that. Nfitz 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No no no no no. Let's be careful now. I wrote a whole article on Vigile.net; go check it out. Vigile is: 1. A respected daily press coverage website on Quebec politics, Canadian politics and the National Question; 2. A vast archive of over ten years of articles of those subjects; 3. A partisan website with the occasional theatrics like the quote you gave (you fell on a bad one and I won't begin defending it). Sometimes one might say there's some bad words there against political adversaries, some hyperbole, some tomfoolery, but there's a big distance between that and any kind of hate site. So, that last, partisan aspect does not affect the quality and quantity of their archiving service itself. And in no way whatsoever are we relying on their word on anything, or any part of their partisanship, in the citations: the references link to pages where only an unaltered original article is there (not even translations, for English texts remain in their original language) and no slogans or such titles are visible. --Liberlogos 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article. How do they obtain copyright for these articles? Nfitz 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not know. Nobody here is an expert on Copyright law as far as I know, especially when it comes to the whole aspect of enforcing it on the Internet. What is the Canadian jurisprudence in that case? I do not know. A possibility is that they did ask for a permission and obtained it. Another possiblity is that they continued to operate waiting for the reaction of newspaper owners (which never came maybe), waiting to see if they would enforce their copyrighted material, ask them to stop reproducing it on a third-party website or maybe allow them to reproduce it under certain terms. When Vigile.net started, they used to have only an excerpt of "alien" articles on their main page and clicking on a link would lead to original news site (ledevoir.com, theglobeandmail.com etc.). But experience demonstrated that after a few years, the links were broken so they started to copy the whole articles themselves in a static HTML pages hosted on their site. Whole different game. My guess is that it was tolerated and Le Devoir, La Presse etc. chose to do nothing about it. After all, it is fair use: Vigile.net certainly never made any money out of those reproductions. They pretty much just served the interest of the public by making quantity of opinion texts accessible online. It was a permanent press review of all things likely to be of interest to evil Quebec separatists like me. In recent years, it was covering International news so well we were actually able to understand some of the things that are going on in this world. ;-) -- Mathieugp 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Vigile.net makes a distincition between canadien and canadian. They always write canadian when they talk about the anglophone nation of Canada. They reserve canadien to those they consider sold out colonized morons (Jean Chrétien, Pierre Trudeau and other Québécois hating Quebecers). -- Mathieugp 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the oddest thing I've ever heard ... Chrétien and Trudeau hating Quebecers? This is surely a hate site! Nfitz 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find it absurd, I suggest your read on the psychological effects of colonization on both the colonized and the colonizer in books such as The Colonizer and the Colonized by, Albert Memmi, The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, Discourse on Colonialism by Aimé Césaire, White Niggers of America by Pierre Vallières etc. To understand how an indirect rule regime is put in place, I recommend The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli and The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa by Frederick Lugard. -- Mathieugp 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Its nice to see the level of political discourse is remaining civilised here. This is as bad as the "anti-American" claptrap that republicans pull out whenever anyone disagrees with them. Peregrine981 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chretien and Trudeau hating Quebec has nothing to do with Colonialism; I can't imagine for one second that either hated Quebec; given the amount of pro-Quebec legislation and policies both put in place over the 35-years they were around. They may have been anti-separtiste, but that doesn't mean they are against Quebecers (and as we have seen in vote after vote, the majority of Quebecers aren't seperatist - they aren't even sovereignty-associationist! :-). Though I don't see what colonialism has to do with anything; both francophones and anglophones colonised Quebec, I don't see how native-issues are relevant here. But back to the point. vigile.net is clearly a hate-site, and shouldn't be used as a source. Nfitz 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism has everything to do with members of a given national community dedicating their lives to crushing their own and denying them the right to justice. Reading The Prince will teach you how the franco-catholic majority of Quebec was dealt with after the British Conquest. Machiavelli explains how after conquering a country differing in language, customs, and laws, one of the good ways of keeping the acquisition and managing its people is to send colonies in. Colonies are cheaper than maintaining soldiers and, in time, the new colonists end up considering the country to be theirs and willingly defend it themselves. The writings of Memmi, Fanon and Cesaire will introduce you to the psychology of the conquered man, the one born under foreign rule, the one who wants to be so much like his ruling masters that he emulates them in every respect: manners, speech and actions. Trudeau is a perfect example case. He who spoke perfect English like his masters and mocked the way the majority of Quebecers spoke French. Imagine Harper being elected by speaking British English and making fun of the way most Anglo-Canadians speak their native tongue. Trudeau demonstrated formidable talents in sophistry to convince many Canadians with one discourse and many Quebecers with another one, different and in contradiction with the first. Chretien only had to continue Trudeau's policy of contempt for Quebec. That was easy. It was not even necessary to speak good English this time.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the "pro-Quebec legislation and policies" put in place by Trudeau and Chretien?

True, the majority of Quebecers are not sovereignty-associationist. Only 40 to 50% of voters are. They are not constitutional reformists either. Only another and slightly overlapping 40 to 50% of voters. However, both of these put together greatly outnumber those who favor the status quo. Yet, they are the ones winning for the past 40 years. For are long as Quebec is divided and conquered, a manipulating minority will be in a perfect position to fool enough people to prevent the necessary political changes. One day, one of the two major options will win: A) Constitutional reform allowing for Quebec to exist as a distinct nation inside a new Canadian union or B) secession, allowing Quebec to exist as a nation-state equal to Canada or any other member of the United Nations.

As for your opinion of Vigile.net, I await the arguments you will use to demonstrate that it is a hate-site. Good luck. -- Mathieugp 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I very much regret the path this discussion has taken and the tone into which it has decended. In the interests of civility I have referred this issue to informal mediation through the Mediation Cabal. Victoriagirl 07:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case has been opened. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Westmount

I'm not sure I follow the point of this paragraph as it relates to the article. Surely it isn't suggested that the Mayor of Westmount was engaging in Quebec bashing simply because he expressed concern at having his largely anglophone municipality amalgamated into the greater (largely francophone) urban entity of Montreal? Were there actual defamatory or unsubstantiated allegations against francophone Quebec society that accompanied his remarks? It can't be 'bashing' just because Group B expresses a desire to preserve its culture against a fear of assimilation by Group A. I am also perplexed at the inclusion of the reported comments of Mr. Landry in response as they seem to represent a highly offensive attack (counterattack?) against anglophones using very derogatory references. Is the substance of this paragraph true? If so, I suggest that it doesn't really belong in this article (unless I'm missing something), but in some other article on anglophobia or anti-English Canadian sentiment or whatever. If the statements attributed to Mr. Landry are not true, then the whole paragraph should be jettisoned, IMHO. I know it's off the topic of the article, but it's disheartening that intelligent citizens of one of the world's great modern states are reduced to quibbling over who has said the nastiest things about whom.Corlyon 02:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Corlyon

I agree that it doesn't belong there and I removed it. It's off-topic anyway since the article focuses on the media. The only reference has no link and I cannot find the article, so I cannot verify the information. --Liberlogos 19:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree that the Westmount section was off-topic. However, it does speak to the issue of definition. That the actions of the City of Westmount - a creation that can in no way be considered part of "the media" - were considered "Quebec bashing" by the Bernard Landry (as reported in an article Rhéal Séguin), provides yet another example as to why, I believe, the definition is far too narrow. Victoriagirl 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The premier of Quebec publically, and in the media, denounced the entire city for Quebec-bashing. If that doesn't belong in an article about Quebec bashing, I don't know what does. Off line references are just as valid as online refs, according to wikipedia policy. I think that focusing this article exclusively on the media is too limiting. Why limit it so artificially? Peregrine981 18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Peregrine981 is correct. Bernard Landry's accusations that the City of Westmount engaged in "Quebec bashing" are only made off-topic by the much disputed definition put forth by this very article - a definition that, despite the good efforts of many, remains unreferenced.Victoriagirl 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put westmount back in, failing any further objections, and will (time permitting) begin to work on expanding this article to encompass Quebec bashing outside the media. Peregrine981 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

French Quebec's purported enemies are everywhere. Congratulations on your recent discovery of a new one!--Lance ^talk 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since my sarcastic comment will certainly be misinterpreted, I will add an additional comment. Westmount contains a significant population of French Catholics; old and tired sterotypes are not encyclopeadic.--Lance ^talk 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here. Since this page (and wikipedia) seems to have settled on media exposure as a reliable test for notability, surely this incident which was covered by the media counts as an example here. I didn't make this up, Bernard Landry did. Peregrine981 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no concencus to put it back, only one person who seemed to partially change their mind. "In the media" means the "Quebec bashing" should be done *through* the media, with the media. --Liberlogos 02:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it wrong to discard a section simply because it doesn't fall in line with the unreferenced definition of "Quebec bashing" provided by the article. The cited use of "Quebec bashing" by Bernard Landry (and, by extension, Rhéal Séguin) quite clearly indicates that the definition currently provided is incorrect. That said, we are now faced with an article that, in part at least, negates the definition. Until a reference for the definition can be found, I'm afraid this article is like a house of cards. Victoriagirl 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect we had about as much consensus to put it back as there was to take it out. I agree with Victoriagirl. The current definition is clearly lacking as this example proves. I am not making this up, there were articles on this topic on Vigile, but they can't be displayed now due to technical problems. I am in favour of expanding this article to encompass ALL instances of Quebec bashing, which I would define as actions or opinions which denigrate Quebec or Quebecers. This is sufficiently broad not to need a source in my opinion. I don't really know where we're going to find a more "official" definition of the term. Peregrine981 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal issues

It would also be worth adding a section on the portrayal of First Nations issues vis-à-vis Quebec; for example, the fact that the Oka Crisis was at one time portrayed by some media as a Quebec-specific phenomenon brought on by "uniquely" poor treatment of First Nations people within Quebec society as a whole, whereas incidents in English Canada (Dudley George, Caledonia, Kashechewan, etc.) are often portrayed as isolated occurences which don't speak to any kind of larger social issue. Bearcat 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a really good idea. Peregrine981 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a brief starter paragraph on First Nations issues; we're obviously going to need to expand it with viable sources. Bearcat 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I modified the bland assertion that English Canadian press coverage distorts reality, because that does require some demonstration and documentation (of specific distortions or denials, I mean). I didn't change the bit about Quebec's relations with aboriginals being depicted as uniquely poor, since that seems obvious to me, too. However, I suppose that requires documentation as well. I'm just too lazy to go through the news databases. I also added a bit about Quebec's own contributions to the field; I'm looking for a source for it, although I'm sure we all remember the SQ report. In particular I remember the French press failing to ask any English Canadian journalists what they felt about it. As I recall, though, the Quebec journalists' union supported the English reporters; if I can find a reference I'll add that, too. John FitzGerald 14:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

After further thought I'm going to take out my addition until I can provide a source, and put a fact tag on the assertion that Quebec's relations with aboriginals being uniquely poor. Both are true, but I decided to comply with the notice at the top of the page. Some examples of articles which make the assertion would be useful, anyway. Incidentally, I agree with Mathireugp above that trudeau and his buddies were Quebec bashers par excellence. John FitzGerald 15:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Has this article degenerated into strange conspiracy theories?

And how about a section or article about unfounded criticism of English Canada by the Quebec press? I'm thinking of the stories about English-Canadian journalists being in league with the Mohawks at Oka, the coverage of Eric Lindros, the accusations against Royal Orr, the working up of a mediocre political science thesis by Esther Delisle into a conspiracy against Quebec when most English Canadians have never heard of it or her, parts of le Livre noir du Canada anglais (such as the trotting-out of the infected blankets myth, which anyway was attributed to the British), etc. I am not trying to dismiss the idea of Quebec-bashing, which is a serious phenomenon that needs to be discussed fully. For example, the documentary about Delisle seems clearly to me to be Quebec-bashing. However, it's only part of a nationwide pattern of ignorance throughout Canada about other parts of the country. Canada is held together by hate. Although Westerners hate Quebec, they share a common bond with Quebec in hating Ontario, and so on. Quebec-bashing is part of a wider phenomenon integral to the Canadian state. It's used to exploit Canadians by keeping them from uniting against the powerful. John FitzGerald 22:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your reference: "the working up of a mediocre political science thesis by Esther Delisle into a conspiracy against Quebec," is patently ignorant. Wikipedia is not a place for your unsubstantiated pet theories; and "original research" is explicitly disallowed.--Lance ^talk 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That last sentence may seem a bit paranoid, but a lot of people have made very good careers out of keeping Canadians ignorant of each other even as they're at each others' throats. John FitzGerald 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't reasonably explain the assertions set out hereafter:

• "exploit Canadians by keeping them from uniting against the powerful"; and,
• "a lot of people have made very good careers out of keeping Canadians ignorant of each other even as they're at each others' throats."

by viz. explaining:

• Who are "the powerful"?

and;

• Who are: "a lot of people"?

then you have failed to rebut the obvious inference that you are a conspiracy theory kook.--Lance ^talk 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The working up of Delisle's thesis into a conspiracy against Quebec used to be discussed in the article about her. Gary Caldwell, for one, said the English-Canadian press had seized on her thesis as a way of arguing that Québécois were unfit to rule themselves (the EC press had of course scarcely mentioned her thesis), and this claim was repeated by others. You argue that Wikipedia is not a place for my unsubstantiated pet theories, but apparently it's one for yours – this page is full of them (for example, "Given the peasant ('habitant') origins of most French Canadians, they were easily susceptible to anti-Jewish propaganda that was taught by the all powerful Judeophobic Quebec Catholic church (that incidentally collaborated with Nazi proponent Adrien Arcand well into the 1950s—even after Auschwitz"). Anyway, are you familiar with the Meech Lake agreement? With the Charlottetown Accord? Did you find that those supposed attempts to get Canadians to agree on Quebec's place in the federation were spectacularly successful? Did you notice that they were used as pretexts for distributing millions of dollars among the government's buddies? John FitzGerald 18:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And no, the article hasn't degenerated as a result of my pet theory because it isn't mentioned in the article. This is the talk page, eh? John FitzGerald 18:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything I have written on this page can be substantiated; in particular, the impugned fact that follows hereafter: "Given the peasant, ('habitant'), origins of most French Canadians, they were easily susceptible to anti-Jewish propaganda that was taught by the all powerful Judeophobic Quebec Catholic church, (that incidentally collaborated with Nazi proponent Adrien Arcand well into the 1950s—even after Auschwitz)."

From Jews and French Quebecers, 1991, by Jacques Langlais, (“a Catholic priest belonging to a congregation of French origin, a missiology [the theological study of the mission of the church, esp. the character and purpose of missionary work] researcher specializing in Asian religions, a Quebec nationalist and lover of French-Canadian folklore who is dedicated to the cause of cross-cultural relations”), and David Rome, (“a Zionist devoted to Quebec’s Jewish community and an archivist with a passion for Quebec history”), p. vii, [[ISBN 0-88920-998-7]]:

Quebecers today are led to believe that the Arcand/Ménard phenomenon was marginal and relatively unimportant. In terms of sheer numbers, however, we should point out that Le Goglu printed a run of 55,000 copies in 1930, and that Arcand managed to rally 13,000 votes for his candidate Saluste Lavery in the 1934 campaign against Camilien Houde. But its importance cannot be measured primarily in terms of numbers. The support, or at least the tolerance that Adrien Arcand initially received from the establishment could do nothing but help cultivate and reinforce Quebec antisemitism. This was especially true among young people, who received his message from the clergy in their schools and parishes [emphasis added].

As late as 1956, Jacques Hébert was lamenting the fact that Adrien Arcand, clearly recognized as a public enemy of Canadian society and Western civilization, still had access to parish halls such as St-Alphone d’Youville for his fascist rallies [emphasis added]. He also wondered as to whether L’Action catholique, Notre Temps and other respected publications had ever printed a word against him:

The people who are careful not to do so probably, like him, harbour a secret hope deep in their hearts that one day they will see our semblance of a democratic regime subjugated by a real dictator (a Catholic like Franco, maybe …), a dictator whose supreme authority “comes from God.” He could cleanse our sacrosanct province of all communists, Jews, trade unions and intelligent newspapers (we could be so happy together, just us Aryans, with our dear “Fuhrer” Adrien).

Ibid., pp. 92-93.

With the resurgence of Nazism in our own time, clothed in Islamic garb, we see that French Canadians are again attaching themselves to these same old wicked ideas.

Was the August rally in Montreal in support of Hezbola, (i.e., genocide, mass-murder, terrorism, and hate), really any different from the same support given to Arcand?

The only difference is that the Catholic church well understands that this new resurgence of Nazism, in Islamic garb, want their heads too. The Quebec “national” movement, easily duped by the Islamists, (they mutually reinforce eachother's mythologies), is now secularized; and, has no “official” support from the Catholic church; that has vigorously supported the “Crown” since the Quebec Act (June 22, 1774).

--Lance ^talk 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So substantiate your assertion that "the peasant ('habitant') origins of most French Canadians [made them] easily susceptible to anti-Jewish propaganda." For a start. John FitzGerald 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. A book would have to be written to fully respond to your question. Are you familiar with the seignorial system? The French Canadians were, in the seignorial system, tenant farmers; but more accurately, indentured servants; or even more accurately, slaves. The system is of Continental European origin, (Rome and Germany); and manifestly medieval. Indeed, it is only through profound ignorance that Quebec "nationalists" want to return, as it were, to the pre-British slavery they suffered under what was a French dictatorship; that was happy to rid itself of its French-Canadian peasantry. Indeed, the so-called British "conquest" is a myth; France abandoned Quebec. Voltaire, a truly vile creature, dismissed Quebec as a field of snow in his novel Candide, (that I enjoyed reading notwithstanding its antisemitism).

In the preface to Joshua Trachtenberg's classic study, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and its Relation to Modern Anti-Semitism, Yale University Press, 1943, he wrote, (p. xiv):

"Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings" we may still learn the unvarnished truth. It came to the father of a friend of mine recently when he parked his car in a small French Canadian town. Two youngsters at play in the street ran over and peered curiously at its occupant. "C'est un Juif," declared the older and wiser, after a moment's consideration. "Mais non," protested the other in his innocence, ce n'est pas un Juif; c'est un homme."

It must be understood that the Jew of Christian theology, or equivalently antisemitism, is not Jewish. Trachtenberg describes how in medieval Christian art, in its representation of the devil (a concept foreign to Judaism), Jewish features are used. In medieval Europe, like French Quebec, what French-Canadians knew about Jews was transmitted by the clergy; since they had, for the most part, never met a flesh and blood Jew. (Esther Delisle explained this in her book, but it evidently went over the heads of her critics who make no distinction between Christian fantasy and real Jews.) In Quebec, most Jews lived in Montreal that, until recently, contrary to popular propaganda, never had a large French speaking population (thus the reason for the laws banning English signs).--Lance ^talk 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the standard answers of the conspiracy theorist – the issue is too complex for the tiny minds of the unbelievers. Nowhere in your reply do I see any real attempt to explain the mechanism by which peasant status produces antisemitism. I agree that most Quebec peasants had probably never met a Jew, which assertion seems to be your only stab at describing how the process works, but neither had most urban Quebeckers, or most Upper Canadians, many of whom were Catholic; that is, this characteristic of peasant status did not distinguish it from non-peasant status, and therefore cannot be explanatory. That's the first step in your theory, and besides that all you can come up with is examples of antisemitism by rural Québécois. The fact that a farmer is antisemitic doesn't mean he's antisemitic because he's a farmer. Furthermore, I run across urban antisemites all the time. What evidence there is suggests antisemitism has been stronger among English Canadians than French, and that it has at least been about equal – are we now to believe that English Canadians also lived under the feudal system? I run across urban antisemites all the time – are they hiding their serf status from me? Furthermore, it seems to me that if the feudal system creates antisemitism then liberation from it should reduce antisemitism. I mean, it should if these principles of yours constitute a real theory. John FitzGerald 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply to the forgoing blurb because it is so bizarre; and I don't want to encourage this discussion any further. But I should make clear that I am not constructing a “theory,” as you put it. Antisemitism is a part of Christian theology; and has nothing to do with Jews; that’s why it exists in the absence of Jews. Christians, (and Moslems, for that matter), hate Jews because they doubt the truth of their religion and its belief systems (antisemitism doesn't exist in non-Christian and non-Moslem societies). I do not know howsoever you construed that I intended to communicate the existence of an equation with peasantry on one side and antisemitism on the other. All I was doing is showing the Catholic factor in French-Canadian hatred of Jews. It is a primitive form of hatred characteristic of an illiterate and backward people; very similar indeed to the Catholic Poles. Antisemitism was not limited to the French-Canadian peasantry; with the “Plamondon Affair,” (1910), serving as but one example in that respect. I make no distinction between antisemitism in Quebec or in other parts of Canada, as you seem to assert I do. The problem here is that Canada is not a real country, (it doesn’t have an authentic identity), and “English-Canada” has sought to use the Jews to seek accommodation with the French antisemites in Quebec; and at other times has used the Jews to attack French Quebec. The Jews were in between a hammer and an anvil; so I ask: Who’s really getting “bashed” here?--Lance ^talk 03:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You say "I don't want to encourage this discussion any further" – no, you just want to be able to abuse people (calling them kooks and antiSemites, for example) without having to justify yourself. And your claim that you're not constructing a theory is just nonsense – "Judeophobia" is inherently a theoretical concept, and explaining something as the result of peasant origins only makes sense if you have a theoretical conception of peasant origins. I remain willing to be enlightened about the validity of your explanation. As we've already demonstrated on this page, it's not as if we can't agree. John FitzGerald 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Patriotism and nationalism

I put a fact tag on the assertion in the section about Diane Francis that patriotism implies nationalism because:

1. I don't think that is necessarily implied in common usage – Orwell drew a famous distinction between the two, for example.
2. As far as I can make out, Francis is neither a Canadian patriot nor a Canadian nationalist. John FitzGerald 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Scully

Is Robert Scully's $200,000 backhander from the government as part of the sponsorship scandal worth mentioning? It does show the kind of company he kept. John FitzGerald 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

I've added a lot of fact tags. I agree with many of the tagged assertions, if not most, but I think they need to be attested. I also noticed that some of the attested statements are attested by secondary sources only, so I'll be having a look at them eventually. John FitzGerald 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mixed heritage

The statement that Normand Lester is "of mixed Jewish and Québécois heritage" could be modified – as it is, it confirms the idea that the Québécois society is ethnic rather than cosmopolitan. Or perhaps whoever put it in could explain what they meant by it. John FitzGerald 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "a Québécois of Jewish heritage." John FitzGerald 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "a Québécois of Jewish heritage" is not used by either the Jewish community or the French-Canadian community in the province of Quebec. I'll accept the peculiar adjectives because they fairly isolate Normand Lester as something unusual and strange.--Lance ^talk 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the phrase, either, but it seemed better than what was there before. it doesn't make my skin crawl, for example. John FitzGerald 17:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, after further thought, I think the description should just come out. Or perhaps it should be reverted to the original description to show that some people apparently do think Jews are not part of the Québécois nation, as they conceive of it. John FitzGerald 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well said.--Lance ^talk 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we agree on something. I'm going to take it out. if someone wants to add a paragraph about how Jews are accepted as part of Québécois society, and use Lester and others as examples, that would be fine by me, especially as the point would be made directly and could then be fleshed out. John FitzGerald 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I had originally put that Lester was of mixed Jewish and French-Canadian heritage, I believe. (His father being a Jewish immigrant from Romania, and his mother being French-Canadian). Mixed Jewish and Québécois heritage makes more or less sense if we agree that Québécois is a non-ethnic based identity (I agree that is also debatable, but mixed Jewish and French-Canadian heritage wasn't). The point was that Lester, as a person of Jewish heritage, claims to never have felt discriminated against in Quebec. The article may have been so modified since that the point doesn't come out anymore. 70.51.37.54 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspected that was the intention, but I think it would probably have been best simply to say that he says he's never been discriminated against as a Jew. As you say, though, that point isn't all that salient any more. I suppose if it's restored we'd have to include Richler's statements about his experiences. I hope it's not restored because I think it's a giant red herring. English Canadians made a bestseller out of Abella's book about their antisemitism, and many English Canadians I know are certain that antisemitism was always less in Quebec. In the 30s Toronto had anti-Semitic riots. I once knew someone who took part in the Kew Beach riot on the Jewish side. Ayway, this whole idea that English Canadians in their ignorance are being stampeded into hating Quebecers for being anti-Semitic may be appealing to many, but it's pretty hard to document (although I realize that to many Quebecers a dozen people in Brockville stomping on a Quebec flag somehow implies that all of English Canada looks down on Quebec).

Your point about mixed Jewish and French-Canadian heritage is still debatable, though; is a francophone Sephardic Jew who grew up in Quebec not French-Canadian? I would consider him/her one, but we English Canadians have abandoned our old ethnic definition of English Canadian, and tend to think the same way about being French-Canadian. That of course is not to say that other definitions are wrong. It's differences in terminology like this which probably account for a lot of the disputes about this and similar pages. John FitzGerald 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I was using French-Canadian in the sense of a descendent of the settlers of the French colony of Canada (and those settlers were not all French). In that sense, Acadians are not French-Canadians either. For better or worse, that's just the meaning traditionally associated with French-Canadian, just like an American born in Egypt is not an African-American. I think a term like Franco-Canadian may be more appropriate for francophones Canadians of Jewish, West African or other ancestry. 70.53.165.72 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the meaning traditionally associated with the term in Quebec French. I don't believe that that is the meaning currently associated with the term in English. I could be wrong, but whether I am or not it's probably better to avoid an edit which would precipitate a debate about this when it won't improve the clarity of the article. Oh, well. You've inspired me to go look at French Canadian." John FitzGerald 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a look, and don't find any sources. John FitzGerald 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that it was the only meaning associated with French-Canadian in English, though it certainly is one of them (and the oldest such meaning). I wasn't saying either that the current article should be modified, just explaining the original logic. Many words have more than one meaning. There is a restrictive sense of French-Canadian referring to a culturally specific group (excluding Acadians and recent Francophone immigrants). Some people use the term French-Canadian in the general sense of a Francophone Canadian, but I continue to make the distinction out of habit and convenience (I can't think of another term to refer to "descendents of the settlers of the French colony of Canada"). As far as I know, the term is used in both English and French with that meaning. Perhaps one day the meaning will become obsolete, and French-Canadian will become the general term for a French-speaking Canadian, just like "Canadian" use to mean "a Canadian-born Frenchman", but today can be used regardless of the person's ancestry. 132.212.92.162 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but again I think it's best to use a wording which makes the point without raising the issue. John FitzGerald 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but "Québécois of Jewish heritage" also raises an issue, that is, it implies he is entirely of Jewish heritage, which he isn't. I think the references to his ethnicities have now been removed, and that's probably for the best. Originally, Lester was the only response quoted, so I added that info in because it added credibility (as a Jew he never felt persecuted in Quebec), but in the current state it is unnecessary. Perhaps if a Normand Lester biography pops up, we can pursue this debate. 69.156.74.113 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we agree. Perhaps I was a little careless in my phrasing. Anyway, I agree entirely with what you've just written. John FitzGerald 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I find the Mediation Cabal decision about the use of vigile.net as a source incomprehensible for the reasons expressed by mathieugp in the discussion. Since comparisons to trials have been made in discussing this issue, I'll note that it's like convicting someone of robbing a bank because he had money in his pocket. John FitzGerald

I also don't see how the decision justifies the removal of links just completed. The decision says removal would be justified if copyright was violated. No one has shown that it was. John FitzGerald 17:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If M Frappier has indeed sought and secured permissions, why is it these permissions and associated copyrights are not acknowledged? This is more than common courtesy, it is a requirement by at least some (if not all) of the media outlets involved. I encourage those interested in the respective policies concerning the reuse of these materials to contact The Washington Post, The Gazette, Le Devoir, La Presse, Le Droit, L'actualité, The National Post. Victoriagirl 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why they're not acknowledged, and neither do you. Lack of evidence of permission is not evidence of lack of permission. Mathieugp has clued me in about why these links should come out at least temporarily, but I don't understand why you haven't contacted the copyright holders. You instigated this issue. And here's a question for you – how has vigile.net been able to get away for so long with barefaced piracy? John FitzGerald 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's evidence that vigile.net has at least been accused of copyright violation. Took me like three minutes to find it. This case seems to demonstrate a weakness of the mediation procedure. It seems both Victoriagirl and Mathieugp felt constrained from looking for evidence for quite understandable reasons. Roles need to be defined more clearly. Anyway, until the copyright dispute is settled at least, Victoriagirl's revisions seem justified to me. John FitzGerald 19:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, vigile.net links to the article about the threat to sue them. I suspect if sued they'll defend their right to reproduce. I don't think they should have it, but I've been wrong before. John FitzGerald 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathieugp has pointed out to me that the article I found was dated 1998. As he suggests, eight years later one suspects either vigile.net won or reached an accommodation. It's time to contact vigile.net and some copyeright holders. John FitzGerald 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that whether vigile.net is within its rights is up to a court to decide. On the whole I'd say if they haven't been sued yet the copyright holders must not be very confident of their chances of winning, but the laws appear to be very vague. Unless we can establish that vigile.net has permission we're probably best to leave it out. If it were up to me I'd assume that the failure of anyone to sue vigile.net (even after threateningto) implies that its use is fair use, but I realize many here don't find that persuasive. John FitzGerald 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)