Talk:Le Livre noir du Canada anglais

English title

I wanted to point out that the book has been published in English translation as The Black Book of English Canada. It can be bought online at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/077102259X/qid=1111273404/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/702-7114608-8864814

I believe the page should be moved to the English title. -- Mathieugp 23:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I know, mon cher Mathieu. As the article founder, I am well aware of the English version forwarded by Ray Conologue and one of the first thing I did was to add a link to its Amazon.ca selling page. As for the title I tend to defend original titles rather than translations. The translation is not the work, it is a version of the work. ...and as I have also defended for other languages and other subjects light years from Quebec politics, I feel using the title in the original language is only respectful of the culture in question. --Liberlogos 01:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not against your argument, on the contrary, but it goes against Wikipedia policy for article naming. You can read it about it here:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

-- Mathieugp 04:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Titles are usually in their English translation (The Three Musketeers, as an example). Il faut ici penser comme un anglais, en anglais...--Staatenloser 14:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the title in French is wrong, « anglais », as an adjective, should be without capitalization. Here's the proper title : Le Livre noir du Canada anglais.--Staatenloser 19:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I would argue that The Three Musketeers occupies a special position because its English title is already so well-established in popular culture. Since Le Livre noir du Canada anglais is not, I think its French title should remain, just as in the French wikipedia we have Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, though this isn't a great example as it's an an article I began. (And here I am thinking like an anglophone, because I am one. :)) --Saforrest 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? It describes a book that is definately not neutral, true, but surely there is a way to describe its ideas accurately, without taking a position on either side? I think it's a valid and important book in the debate on this issue. It should be well presented somehow without these warnings. Dan Carkner 15:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The impartial and questionable motives of this book should certainly be included because nobody writes that type of book in an attempt to be neutral (nor is it possible). Covering a selected racial or socio group's (english canadians) injustices cannot be a "neutral" task and it was therefore not surprising that these individuals were the ones responsible for digging up the information on the sponsorship scandal. Their writing's clearly have one main goal, Quebec independence. This motive is not in intself unethical but to claim that their writings are impartial is evidently impossible. Canking 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not exactly what happened. The author of this book is a journalist who got sick of constant depiction of Quebecers in general, (francophones especially, nationalists ones even more), as morally inferior to Anglo-Canadians, a phenomenon otherwise known as "Quebec bashing". He took it personal, said to himself "how can the intellectual elites of English Canada dare in light of the colonial history of Canada". So he wrote this book (later a series), whose thesis is derived from the work of Maryse Potvin, work translated in English as "Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998", in Canadian Ethnic Studies, volume XXXII, issue 2, 2000, pages 1-26. I gave a long quote of it in Talk:Quebec bashing/Archive 1:

"[...] 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)."

So Normand Lester used Potvin's analysis grid and applied it to a series of events in the history of British North America and turned it into a polemic best-seller. Of course his work is POV, but the description of it was fairly accurate if I remember correctly (it was a while ago). -- Mathieugp 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The book is neutral. It presents historical facts and quotes, entirely referenced. That you don't like the truths it denounces does not compromise its neutrality. 70.80.68.146 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Livrenoircan1.jpg

Image:Livrenoircan1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)