Wikipedia

Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment/Archive 4

< Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 70.81.55.61 in topic Examples Section
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Barbara Kay controversy

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the Off-Topic tag from this section because "The Rise of Quebecistan" was widely understood as anti-French/Quebecois: the reaction of the Quebec Press Council (est. 1973) is solid evidence enough to make that call. I also trimmed the description down considerably: there is a full article on the controversy already, and too much detail here just obfuscates the section's relevance to the article. The new wording might need some editing but we certainly don't need every name and date, or the two lengthy blockquotes. Also, it's fair to say that many of the other examples need trimming as well. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Landry

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Landry's remarks no doubt induced a good amount of Quebec bashing, but the remarks themselves are not an example of it. I removed this subsection (disputed since 2008), and moved an edited version to the Bernard Landry article. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a ton of references to claims of anti-semitism of both english speaking and french speaking canadians in this article. I feel that most of these references are not relevant and need to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.168.229 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced Tag

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've taken the liberty of removing the 5 year old "unbalanced" tag from the top of the article. Not only is the article sourcing all its claims and clearly NPOV in its writing, but the initial debate over this seemed to revolve around the idea that Quebec bashing doesn't exist despite evidence to the contrary because it's some sort of separatist conspiracy. If anyone has any objection to the removal of this tag, please state your reasoning here. 142.83.68.58 (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. The article sources its claims from questionable, politically biased sources, and on the whole, presents only one side of the argument. I am re-adding the flag, which is well-deserved. 142.176.57.222 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if the POV claim is accurate, but one thing's clear: this article is not B-class. There are too many unnecessary "examples" and not enough explanation. Also, there's too much newspaper commentary for a topic like this: there should be more from government and academic sources. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Dismissing 115 sources and 9 books as being all questionable and politically biased, never mind that some of them are links to actual Quebec bashing, does not constitute a convincing argument towards adding the "unbalanced" tag. If you can point out which sources are unreliable and for what reason, then we can remove said sources and rewrite the article accordingly. Until then, please refrain from declaring it as not adopting a NPOV. I would also like to point out that 142.176.57.222 (talk) went on a slew of edits on Quebec related pages, noting them as unbalanced or not notable, then went on a vandalizing spree. Hence, I wouldn't consider his opinion on this matter to be relevant or advise paying attenton to it as his aim is clearly not to improve Wikipedia. 142.83.68.58 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

General topic of Quebec bashing

Like all form of discrimination Anti-quebec is over several main theme.

First Transfert payment: The transfert paiement are often used as an excuse to Quebec bashing. Quebec receive the biguest amount due to it population but it in the average when we evaluate the transfers by pop. Also the argument totally overlook most the other federal expense and subdize to focus on a small part.

Rasism: Quebecer are often protrait as tribal and racist especialy the nationalism and independantism part of quebec population.


The cause of Anti-Quebec sentiment

Canadian chauvinism: 

   The fact that Quebec do not share the same view on many topic like multiculturalism, monarchie, progressivism, nationalism, political system structure and country administation often create tention


Canada identity crises: 

    Canadian often identifie according to multicultularism dogma. Multiculturalism is seen as the ultimate form of anti-rascism social organisation and challenging it is taboo. According to anglo-canadian, multiculturalism is what differienciate them from american Quebeker often challenge than idologie for many reason. Unlike canada, Quebecker define themself by there collective aventure, french heritage and language and first nation influence. Since Quebecer are not bound to multiculturalism to define themself they are more likely to challenge multiculturalism and by doing that insecurise the rest of canada in there collective identity.

The good old french vs english: Centuries old enemy don't make peace easly, especialy in a position of dominated and dominant, it take times.


spelling, grammar and syntax

This article is an absolute disaster. When we agreed to hire somebody to write the English Wikipedia entry, we were PROMISED that this person would be fluent in English. C'est vraiment incroyable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.94.195 (talk • contribs) 5:44 pm, 30 March 2014, Sunday (UTC−4)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Quebec sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Quebec sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Quebec sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Quebec sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Anti-Quebec sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeux Bridés

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was surprised by this section of the article. "Yeux Bridés" in French means "monolids" in English, not slanted eyes. Sir John Falstaff (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Bias in the Article towards Quebec

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Much of the page is written in a perspective benefitial or partial to the side of Quebec such that a regular person who reads this article may be persuaded to take a biased view from the information on the article. The article begins with "Anti-Quebec sentiment is opposition or hostility expressed toward the government, culture, or the francophone people of Quebec." yet the article is about Anti-Quebec Sentiment rather than Quebec-phobia as with a term as vague as Anti-Quebec Sentiment it may simply be a political stance rather than an ethic or purist one. So the article from the beginning paints people with such a statement as openly hostile to Quebec and its way of life rather than perceived superiority of the French language or something equivalent.

"Hateful Anti-Quebec Coverage" is also a vague term solely in the perspective of Quebec media where it is sensible that they hold at least some pro-Quebec bias. It also mentions the opinion of sovereignist journalists without mentioning the nationalistic caveat of such a stance.

In the Themes section it labels opposition to pro-French language laws as against Francophones rather than towards the content of the law. The comparison of the OQLF is also fairly biased as the negative opinions of a few people are used to insinuate the views of all English speaking Quebecers.

The rest of the article continues in the view that Quebecers, specifically French speaking ones, are hated and unfairly discriminated against by critics which is not remotely true. Opposition to Quebec nationalism, independence or French language superiority obviously does not count as anti-Quebec sentiment but the article fails to make that point. The article needs to be rewritten to remove such a misleading wording. Brly31415 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a lot of baseless claims in there. For starters, you claim that it's partial towards Quebec, yet you don't explain why that is. I read this article and it states nothing but facts. Even the opinions listed in there are presented as opinions. Of course an article about anti-Quebec sentiment is going to talk about anti-Quebec sentiment. The point of the article is to explain what it is, its history and provide examples. It is not to try and excuse it.
You then say that several terms in the article are vague, namely "Anti-Quebec sentiment" and "Hateful Anti-Quebec coverage," but don't explain why either. I think they're fairly clear. And yes, the people targeted by a campaign of hate are going to be the ones to denounce it, not the people engaging in the campaign of hate. This is why you don't quote KKK wizards about whether black people in the United States are victims of racism.
And you end by stating that it isn't true that Quebecers are hated and unfairly discriminated against, presenting absolutely no evidence to support your claim against the mountains of evidence cited in the article. You claim it's mere opposition to Quebec nationalism, independence or "French language superiority" despite the fact that this is not what the article is. Explain to me how statements like "French Quebec is a culturally deprived, insecure community whose existence is an accident of history" are mere opposition to Quebec nationalism. Tell me why you think calling Quebec's women "sows" is opposition to "french language superiority." Tell me how pretending Quebecers are bloodthirsty monsters out to kill immigrants is simply opposition to independence.
Here's the deal: This article is not perfect, but your take on it is the take of someone who would deny the existence of anti-Quebec sentiment. This article is inconvenient to you and others like you so you come in claiming it's vague, biased and untrue without anything to back it up, yet hoping that if enough people agree with you, you can make it go away. If you have proper contributions to make, they're welcome. That is not what you are doing. Akesgeroth (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, Quebec Bashing MEANS Quebec Phobia and it was the original title of this page before a more encyclopedic title was chosen.74.58.76.105 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I just remove a baseless comments filled with hate speech using a gross language from a self proclaimed expert of Quebec population from the talk zone. The talk zone is not forum to express an political opinion. All claim must be sourced appropriately.

Can we please get something straight here. The province itself, was never declared by the Harper government, a nation within Canada. The Harper government (via legislation) declared the French-speaking Quebecers a nation within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

True that the motion did not single out the province. But it did not specify French-speaking Quebeckers. It simply talked of the "Québécois." Most people no doubt interpreted that as meaning French-speaking Quebeckers, but Harper himself said it meant anyone who self-identified as Québécois. Instant Comma (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As long as we're clear, it's not the province itself. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Instant Comma (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

EMSB denial of Quebec nationhood

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a short section on this topic to the article. The denial of the existence of a people or their nation is a common attitude among imperialists and thus I felt it belonged in this article. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on this article

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I came back to check on this article and yet again, people have come here and slapped dubious and downright misleading "bias" and "citation needed" tags everywhere and deleted large portions of it. I've undone all these edits. As an example, asking for a source for Quebec's nationhood is like asking for a source for a statement like "a banana is a fruit." At this point, if you're asking for a source for it, you're not doing it in good faith. I'm going to request protection on this article so Timmy and Jimmy from Toronto can't come in here and deface this article every time Quebec doesn't do what Canada would want it to do. Akesgeroth (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the protection was refused due to vandalism not being common enough. Since then, I've twice had to revert edits where IPs deleted "nation" from the article and now I had to revert the talk page because an IP had restored an earlier rant by another IP which had been deleted because it was, well, incoherent, hateful nonsense. To the accusation of ownership: No, I do not own this article. You'll note that the rant had been removed by another user for the aforementioned reasons and that I'm not the only one who replied to Brly31415. This article is on my watch list specifically because people with a political agenda are attempting to vandalize it in a myriad of ways, from sneaky rephrasing and tagging to the deletion of massive portions of it. If you're here because you want to improve this article, that's fine. If you're here because you don't like that this phenomenon is being recorded, maybe you should ask yourself why the existence of this article bothers you so much. Or don't, just keep vandalizing it and it'll keep being reverted. If not by me, by someone else. Akesgeroth (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Quebec (which is a province) is not a nation within Canada. The Harper government said that the "Quebecois"(i.e. French Quebecers) are a nation within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
PS - I will be opening an RFC on this matter, if my correct changes get reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Your changes will not be reverted because, as you said, they are correct. I see a few competent editors have decided to get involved and I appreciate it. I'm not a regular or experienced editor myself, I merely keep an eye out for vandalism. Thank you for your help. Akesgeroth (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I just had to revert a lot of POV-pushing content from a single IP user who was more concerned with denying Quebec's nationhood and complaining about bill 101 than actually informing people about the phenomenon of Quebec Bashing. I maintain that this article should be protected. Akesgeroth (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Original research in Quotes section

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This section likely constitutes original research, as it seems to be an editor's selection of quotes they deem to be anti-Quebec, without any reference to secondary sources that describe the quotes as anti-Quebec. Perhaps there could be some selection criteria added to the section, but it would be quite difficult to come up with something definitive, so I am leaning towards removing the section all together. Yeeno (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the section, as I also have concerns about it being a WP:BLP violation, because it may imply that the quotes' authors are prejudiced. Yeeno (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the assessment that it is original research. However, I do possess several sources which would be good for the article but my editing abilities are poor. As you and User:RandomCanadian clearly have a vested interest in improving this article and seem to be knowledgeable about editing, I'll provide the sources and you can redo the section instead of wholesale deletion. I used the deleted section to look for sources on quoted figures. First:
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/rs/1900-v1-n1-rs01047/1021004ar/
This is a social research article touching on Quebec bashing in English language media in Canada. It covers Diane Francis, among others.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338659106_Some_Racist_Slips_about_Quebec_in_English_Canada_Between_1995_and_1998
This particular article covers Howard Galganov and many others.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-legislature-votes-to-condemn-article-that-bashed-province-as-racist-1.3276962https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-legislature-votes-to-condemn-article-that-bashed-province-as-racist-1.3276962
This one covers the condemnation of McCullough's article by Quebec's legislature as Quebec bashing.
I hope that these three sources are interesting! I'll give you some time to try and insert them properly in the article though if you don't want to, I'm fine with doing it myself, though I expect the editing to be inferior in such a case. Thank you for helping improve this article! Akesgeroth (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Examples Section

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm making some edits to the "examples" section of the article. I'm going to list/discuss them here in case people want to suggest different changes or restoring some things I remove or change. I've renamed the section to "alleged examples" since in many of the most notable cases it's controversial whether the event/statement qualifies as Quebec bashing or was just legitimate criticism of Quebec society.

- At the opening of the section were several sentences describing events that are covered in greater detail later on (e.g., Richler, Deilise, Don Cherry, etc.). I've removed these sentences since they're redundant and to reduce the article's bloated length.

- Similarly, at the start of the examples section there were several single-sentence descriptions of purported anti-Quebec statements or events. Although sourced, these seemed so minor and non-noteworthy that I removed them so that there wasn't just a paragraph listing a dozen unrelated minor news stories. I don't think we should strive to catalogue every reported instance of purported Quebec-bashing.

- I removed the "Lawrence Martin" sub-section. The gist of the claim here is that Martin wrote a negative biography of a Quebec politician, so it's Quebec bashing. The whole section was only here because it's used as an example in the Black Book of English Canada. There was a earlier discussion in the Talk archive where the sub-section was considered for deletion since it was not notable.

- I removed the "Yeux bridés" sub-section. This event is well-documented, but it's not clear from what's written why it qualifies as anti-Quebec sentiment and not just a controversy about a politician's faux pas. There is nothing in the section that explains how worries that the comments were prejudicial were Quebec bashing. This was also considered for deletion in the Talk archive, for similar reasons.


- I removed the "Richard Lafferty" sub-section for similar reasons. It documents how Lafferty defamed two Quebec politicians, but does not make any effort to explain how criticism of two nationalist politicians is an expression of prejudice against all of Quebec or Quebecois generally. Many it was somehow, but it must be explained. Not just any criticism of a Quebec politician expresses anti-Quebec sentiments. 

  Hate is often hidden into criticism. A defining Quebec the same as Nazi's Germany is one of them. 2022-10-30 ac.

- I removed the "English Montreal School Board" sub-section. The section documents how the School Board denied that Quebec was a nation. It's taken as self-evident that this is somehow anti-Quebec, even though the sociological question of whether Quebec is a nation, or whether "nations" as social kinds even exist, is debated. I personally think Quebec is a nation, but doubting it is not automatically prejudicial. 

   Existence denials is a basic form of hate and xenophobia. It should remains there. The examples is valid because of the demonstration of contempt. Ac 2022-10-30

- I added the "2021 Federal Election Debate+ sub-section. This is a recent, high-profile public debate that took place which centred entirely on accusations of "Quebec-bashing." Since it's unequivocally related to the subject matter, it merits inclusion here.

- I removed a paragraph about how Quebec likes to remind English-Canada that racism exists in its history as well. This paragraph does not really contribute to the article, since it merely points out that racism exists in English Canada.

More to come. Loquacious Folly (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Your opinion have no place here stick to the fact.

70.81.55.61 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Also hate speech, bigotry and xenophobia is not allowed on the talk page. The talk page is used for encyclopedic discussion. Opinion and personal experience don't belong there.


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment/Archive_4&oldid=1236111306"