Talk:Canadian values

Comments

The term Canadian values is used extensively in the press and by politicians.

One of the problems with the term is that it is difficult to define.

I think a Wikipedia article regarding the term is helpful. Hopefully, the article will be a balanced discussion and include many points of view. WSDavitt (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lipsett stuff

@Rjensen: - I'm not sure that the content you added here is supported. Lipsett's own work didn't describe itself as "establishing the core concepts" decades ago, and the article you cited only says that Lipsett offered his interpretation of the differences between Canadian and American values. What's more, it concludes that in analyzing Lipsett's theories critically, "we are left with a conceptual framework that seems relatively inadequate" and "cannot be easily rescued." These sources don't suggest anything like the kind of consensus or conceptual coherence/stability that your edit suggests. I'd suggest recasting it to say that Lipsett argued - and other scholars have generally agreed - that Canadian values are distinct form American values, and that he offered some theories of where they differ, and why, but that other scholars have criticized his framework. That seems much more in line with what the sources actually say than what you wrote. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

ok. I rewrote it. The main point is that Lipset introduced the sociological research into the topic. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A Useless Mishmash

This article is not particularly well structured or coherent. It also seems to privilege statements and positions from the last ten years. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:ADD5:C34D:C7AE:D85 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotion tag

It brings attention to the values as mentioned in the cited Canadian publication. Could you kindly elaborate on how the top part might be viewed as a form of promotion or propaganda, and possibly overlooks the body's description of the ongoing absence of unified values? I would greatly appreciate your insights. Thank you.2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Citations article-wide corroborate absolutely none of the stated values apart from the few overarching points of @Moxy:'s version. Entire middle section of the lead is either original research or dependent on only a single citation, with a very unencyclopedic promotional or essay-like writing style that damages the credibility of the entire article by being included. Moxy's version is limited to ideas corroborated between multiple sources and leaves room for discussing the lack of actual concrete values stated at multiple points in the body.

In fact the more I write on the subject the more inclined I am to write off the entire article as an obscure neologism and going with the old deletion proposal above. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Purpose "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." Moxy- 21:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Review the new version, and add suggestions, thank you.2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The promotion tag was the suggestion, and the failure to improve the sourcing or tone of the offending text is what necessitated it to be removed and replaced with the current, completely uncontroversial version. The tag was submitted more than a week ago and was removed without explanation by unregistered, possibly sockpuppeted users in a manner that justified the sort of zero-tolerance approach that is often necessary to maintain the quality of large articles such as this one. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, Moxy opted for edit warring rather than offering constructive suggestions for further improvement, which seems like consistent disruptive editing from the page history, and to an extent with inconsistent wikipedian activities as complained here. Parts of the current version are duplicated in other related articles (e.g. Canadian identity, Culture of Canada, Canadians, etc.) and do not solely focus on values, which degrades the quality of the article, and makes it vague. The 2018 comment under "A Useless Mishmash" reflects it. Kindly review the revised version made here. If there are any offending text or controversial elements in the revision, kindly quote them. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions editors may have. Regards.2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the removed text was entirely promotional and very poorly written, any version other than Moxy's would be completely unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards, which should be a given anyway given their established familiarity with the subject. Removing and replacing the text as they did was the only reasonable course of action and only came about after a series of unregistered editors escalated the situation by reverting back to the POV version without consensus and removing the maintenance tag. The only suggestion I could have for you is to give up and stop pushing your personal views on the subject of the article after having it repeatedly explained to you why the text in question is not appropriate. Orchastrattor (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned the links above that were provided are not being utilized. Pls review WP:Encyclopedic style. That seen I am also concerned with the one old source being used. Going to ask @Rjensen: to chime in here. Moxy- 00:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the revision? (@ Orchastrattor) If so, please provide feedback based on it. Familiarity with a subject by an editor is not a valid reason for favoring a particular version of an article. In this case, the content does not align with the title and appears to be a copy-paste, as mentioned in the previous comment and supported by evidence in edit summaries and historical records. If the content were consistent with cited material or had an updated citation, it could be considered acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Quoting content directly from cited material does not equate to promoting personal views. I am uncertain about the intention behind such baseless personal attacks and misrepresentations. I hope for constructive feedbacks to enhance the article's quality. Regards.2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify (@Moxy), which old source are you referring to ?2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you were quoting content directly without demarcating it as a quote that means the offending version would have also been running afoul of WP:COPYRIGHT in addition to it's promotional tone, if it wasn't quoted directly that means that the promotional tone was consciously chosen by editors who were uncritically regurgitating obvious propaganda with zero accommodation for the opposing views explored throughout the body. Your feedback was that it was bad and unencyclopedic, that's just about all that can be said. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"promotional" is a meaningless term in terms of Wikipedia goals and is not helpful. Canada scores pretty high in world perspective in asking "who are we" and "what are our values" That results in a lot of speculation but this article depends primarily on pretty solid social science scholarship. There is little reliance on political speeches, or newspaper editorials for example. Thus it fits well in terms of Wikipedia's goals. I therefore agree with Moxy. Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor, I am still uncertain about how the revised version might be perceived as offensive or where the promotional tone is present. If you could kindly highlight the specific sections in the revision here, it would not appear as opinions aimed at roping others in. Regarding the copyright issue, as you know, that sentence was not addressing that. As for accommodating opposing views in the lead section, I also do not see a significant representation of such perspectives in the current version. From what I have read on the subject matter, glimpses of such opposing elements can be found in works like "Painting the Maple" from UBC Press and in various newspaper articles. Though, such work requires time and effort of editors. However, to provide a better scope of the subject, it is worth noting that official governmental publications on the topic are somewhat scarce. Therefore, it is possible that the expectations for the article you have are somewhat high based on your comment. If there are specific changes you have in mind, it would be very constructive if you could kindly outline them.2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rjensen:, I agree with you on "Canada scores pretty high in world perspective in asking "who are we" and "what are our values" That results in a lot of speculation." The citation that it has doesn't provide any information. Would you be willing to comment on this new revision here, and suggest what changes could be made. The "Canada scores pretty high" section present in the earlier revision is addressed as well. Thanks.2607:FEA8:E3C0:6BE0:9CA0:46A9:550B:468D (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything removed in Moxy's version is POV, nothing in the article justifies discussing the subject with anywhere near the authoritative tone you prefer, apart from a few relatively obscure sociologists whose views on the subject have not achieved universal enough recognition to be included without qualification in the lead. Nothing in the article agrees on any concrete set of values beyond the vague outline presented in Moxy's version, it's just a meaningless buzzword used against Americans, immigrants and Quebec nationalists and should be treated as such. Orchastrattor (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor, I don't have to be obvious here, but I hope you know that your comments don't make much sense. You are criticizing the current version of the article and saying the article is not worth discussing, and its presence is driven by ulterior motives. Yet, you reverted to it. You also state that the current non-neutral version is vague. It's very evident that you understand why the revision was required and why it was corrected based on sources from available government publications and national surveys. Then you mention sociologists; you could be talking about subsections, which is not a concern addressed here. But yes, the whole article is not great. However, minor improvements like correcting the content, reorienting it, and adding authoritative sources aren't bad for the article. The version you removed was updated and kept there for Rjensen's review. Before the editor had the opportunity to review it, you removed it, and subsequently Moxy used that opportunity to gain wide lockout measures. This is a widely employed abuse of process behavior. Anyhow, spending one evening is far more than enough to instigate sensibility, and in attempting to do collaborative and constructive editing, it is very hard to do it when some are just here to use this platform for grinding their axe. Notifying the intervened Administrator (@Isabelle Belato:) as well to let them know the ongoing process here, and to provide further insights into the continuous blocks requested.2605:B100:D4D:F3B0:976:1A35:498A:1FD6 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Moxy's version is the NPOV version, you are blocked from editing because you repeatedly ignored any attempts to build consensus in favor of uncritically reinserting poorly written propaganda into the article. The vague version is the only correct version because the term is not corroborated by sources as anything other than a vague neologism. Readers and editors of this page were notified of the massive issues in the lead with the promotion tag, an action which was then escalated to a wholesale removal of the offending material after a group of partisan, unregistered editors including yourself took to edit warring in favor of the obviously POV version. If material in the lead isn't corroborated by a large majority of the sources used for the body of the article it is unrepresentative and should be removed as soon as is appropriate.

This also isn't WP:AFC, running page versions exist to inform readers and build an encyclopedia, not to test or review potential future versions of the prose, and administrators do not have any additional authority on subjects they are not already established as experts in. Isabelle Belato is not, as far as I am aware, an expert in Canadian culture and history and therefore does not have any authority to review pages beyond deciding whether or not to enact a ban or page protection action, which was obviously warranted here due to your inability to follow consensus or offer constructive, policy-compliant improvements to the article. The article was marked as badly written and inaccurate, and was then edited by an established community expert to remove the offending text, that's the entirety of the "process" here. Protecting the page was a routine anti-disruption action taken after you chose to repeatedly revert to a deprecated version without doing anything to ameliorate the already concurred-upon issues of sourcing, tone, and NPOV. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)