Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

French Montrealistan police launch antisemitic hoax

In a newsletter internal to the Montreal police force it was disingenuously suggested that female cops not intervene with Orthodox Jews; but rather, ask a male cop to intervene instead. The Jewish community was taken by surprise by this since they had never made any such request. This is another example of the French Canadians using or attacking Jews to address their society’s pathologies.

It is well known that Muslim crime, including wife-beating, is rife in the city. The Montreal Muslem population has increased in the last fifteen years to well over 100,000, (far exceeding the Jewish population); in particular, French speaking Arabs were sought for their ability to speak French; with their support of terrorism and violent crime being seen as not so important. Pointing out the problem, however, has certain risks attached to it. So, the Montrealistan police figured they would attack the Jewish community, as a proxy for their Moslem problem, since Jews don’t riot or create public disturbances.

The Hassidim appreciated this motion, explaining that their beliefs do not allow them to look at women who are not related to them. It is the way they respect their women. Soul scanner contribs)

You seem mostly motivated by the hatred of Muslims. Sad. Too bad people will get the impression that this is what Judaism is about. It isn't. Soul scanner

This person (who started the "Montrealistan" thread) is really racist and is eloquently demonstrating Quebec Bashing. We all live in a world of political correctness and it leads to awkward situations everywhere, not only in Quebec. An Ontarian judge just ruled that the Toronto City Hall should remove their Xmas tree so as not to offend non Christians. Muslims and Jews of TOronto were actually offended by the judge's awkward decision. Now what? You're gonna say the judge must be French-Canadian?

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2006/12/15/003-accommodement-survol.shtml

69.156.25.212 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

One person makes one post and that is "eloquently demonstrating Quebec bashing"? And how many Muslims and Jews were offended by the Ontario judge's decision? You make it sound as if they all were. I imagine most Muslims and Jews had the same reaction most English Canadians have to the policies of the Parti Québécois: none. If all of us non-Christians were to make a principle of getting upset about every Christian attempt to jam their religion down our throats we'd never get any work done. I will note that I have as much evidence of my belief about the reaction of Muslims and Jews as you (whoever you are) do of whatever your belief is.

As for the original post in this thread, the rest of us were content to let it speak for itself. The absurdity of the post (e. g., attacking Jews is supposed to be a way to deal with supposed wife-beating by Muslims?) is self-evident. By doing nothing but name-calling back all you've done is give buddy credibility. John FitzGerald 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Quebec bashing → Anti-Quebec sentiment – Anti-Quebec sentiment may or may not be a valid article title, but the "Quebec bashing" title is not valid as it is not commonly used and does not have a professional tone. Deet 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Survey - Support votes

• Support. Deet 01:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Not to mention Quebec bashing isn't overly NPOV. --Bobblehead 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Lance ^talk 00:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But the alternative isn't either, as I point out in the next section. John FitzGerald 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support The phrase "bashing" itself is inherently negative POV and assumes that the subject is being unfairly treated or "bashed". The alternative is more generic and is an applicable description of that view point. more importantly, it is more NPOV. 205.157.110.11 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; much more encyclopedic. -Joshuapaquin 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Support per all above. Obvious POV issues/other term is not at all inadequate. Also, I fear that once this discussion disappears, people will get lazy and let this title stay. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support.

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose: Anti-Quebec sentiment is too general a title. The current title is a common term in Quebec for the journalistic phenomenon described in the article. I agree the term is propagandistic and often equivalent to hyperventilation, but if you want a neutral title it should be more specific than Anti-Quebec sentiment. The current title is an actual term in actual use. John FitzGerald 14:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

With only 500 ghits on the term relating to such a major province/nation, I don't think that qualifies as widely used. Deet 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I got 909 hits on Google, and only 67 for "anti-Quebec sentiment." Here are some other points. First of all, the proposed new title is POV, as it implies that criticism of Quebec amounts to being "against Quebec." Secondly, reducing criticism of Quebec to "sentiment" is also POV. Unlike many people, for example, I don't think Mordecai Richler was motivated by hatred of Quebec. I'm not against moving the article – I just think the proposed new title has the same failings as the current one. The idea of renaming the article is certainly worth discussing – hey, we are. John FitzGerald 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that the existing title is not professional and seems to be POV (and, yes, doesn't have a lot of ghits). Granted the proposed doesn't have ghits either, but there are plenty of Wikipedia articles that may or may not have many ghits (e.g., List of United States Presidents by height order) as long as they are logical and professionally labelled. As for the rest of your arguments, I fail to see how someone can be a "Quebec basher" but not be "against Quebec". I just don't see it. Deet 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You wanted a new title with a professional tone, but the proposed alternative is no more professional than the current title. I, a Canadian, think Canada's treatment of First Nations is shameful, but that doesn't make me "anti-Canada." Bishop Tutu thinks the same thing – that doesn't make him "anti-Canada," either. The proposed new title is reminiscent of Soviet propaganda, with its implication that Quebec (like the proletariat) is always right and always unanimous about every issue. Come to think of it, it's reminiscent of recent American propaganda, too, including the whole sorry history of the House Un-American Activities Committee (and freedom fries, so named to avoid the taint of the "anti-American" French). The propagandistic overtone and the stereotypical smear of criticism of Quebec as "sentiment" (onre of the "rest of my arguments" you didn't deal with) disqualify the proposed new title as the desired professional replacement for Quebec-bashing. In fact, it would give the whole idea of Quebec-bashing credibility it doesn't deserve. John FitzGerald 13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does anti-Quebec sentiment imply dislike against all of Quebec, but Quebec bashing does not imply bashing against all of Quebec? Deet 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is precisely tht they mean the same thing, and that therefore the proposed new title is not an improvement, and is in fact worse because it lends credibility to the idea.John FitzGerald

1. Oppose: Anti-Quebec sentiment is too general a title. I suggest Anti-Quebec discourse in English language media -- Mathieugp 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Again, "anti-Quebec" has too propagandistic a ring for me. I suggest External criticism of Quebec political policies. John FitzGerald 13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. That doesn't work, because a lot of the criticism is by Quebeckers. So how about Questioning of the motives of criticism of Quebec government policy and popular practices? John FitzGerald 13:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

John, that just might be the most accurate title. Now ask yourself, does that sound like an encyclopedia article name or an essay name? This is case on point of why the premise of this entire article is flawed to begin with. Deet 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you call the premise of the article? The confusion comes from the fact that Quebec bashing can mean at least two different things: 1) in the general sense, it can mean litteraly just that, the bashing of Quebec, French Quebecers especially, pro-independence partisans even more, for whatever reason by whoever and 2) the phenomenon which Maryse Potvin only partly covered in "Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998", in Canadian Ethnic Studies, volume XXXII, issue 2, 2000, pages 1-26. (See the excerpts above.)

The ambiguity lies in the various ways in which "Quebec bashing" is understood. Because of that alone, the article should be renamed. But there is more. By covering this topic, that is, the topic I have name (I guess too generally again) the "Anti-Quebec discourse in English language media", Wikipedia is making available to English speakers of Canada and elsewhere (assuming they care), probably for the first time, a glipse of what is being openly and uncontroversially discussed in the French language media of Quebec where the POV of sovereignists and the POV of federalists both have a free run and are therefore forced to consider each others' arguments. Isn't it funny how things turn out to be once you have fired your interpreter? ;-) -- Mathieugp 05:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support changing the name to: Anti-Quebec discourse in English language media. Deet 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the simple reason that you're taking a actually used phrase and replacing it with a neologism. It also seems to imply that the Quebec bashing article isn't broad enough in scope, which I'm not sure about. Kevlar67 20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - the new title is no better, as discussed below. Peregrine981 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: The new title is no better than the old one. However, a new title is needed as the term "Quebec Bashing" remains undefined outside of this article. Please see "Discussion" below. Victoriagirl 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I thought I'd move my part of the discussion down here where space is provided for it. First, I reiterate that criticizing the policies of the Quebec government does not amount to being against Quebec, and I oppose any change to a title including Anti-Quebec as unnecessarily lending credence to the idea that it is. The term discourse also is tendentious. Is Jan Wong part of a discourse, or is she what she is, a former Red Guard who sometimes goes off half-cocked? What "discourse" has she contributed to? Who has she debated? And is there a discourse for her to be part of? In general, the anglophone press is dominated by people who advocate "building bridges" to Quebec. Now, I believe they aren't really serious about that, but that's another -- and more important -- issue.

The crucial point, it seems to me, is that any criticism of Quebec government policy is interpreted in Quebec as an attack on a people. For example, Mordecai Richler made the legitimate criticism that a nation which uses another nation's currency cannot be said to be sovereign. Instead of replying, many of his critics simply wrote him off as a Quebec-basher (Alain Dubuc, for example, who also felt justified in misrepresenting him). On a related point, similar criticism of English Canadians is not interpreted in Quebec as anglo-bashing. English-Canadian journalists in Oka were unjustifiably accused of conspiring with the Mohawks -- not anglo-bashing. Eric Lindros was depicted as someone with enormous support in English Canada (as big a hero as Elijah Harper, I read) when in fact he was considered by most English Canadians to be a greedy bastard -- not Anglo-bashing. Royal Orr was accused for no reason at all of setting fire to the Alliance Quebec headquarters -- just an attempt at bridging the gap between cultures.

One thing that might be mentioned in the article is that the Quebec press, apart from Radio-Canada, does not maintain bureaux in English Canada outside of Ottawa. They don't seem to read the English papers outside Quebec, either, except when Jan Wong writes about Quebec. They don't know what's going on in English Canada, and so the odd Quebec-basher seems to them a frightening phenomenon. They don't realize that Jan Wong is a minor figure whose main contribution to Canadian journalism was a bitchy column about lunching with celebrities.

Anyway, any title with anti-Quebec in it implies that the English-Canadian press is against an entire people, and furthermore that the Quebec press is pure as the driven snow. Since neither of those implications is true, I'll suggest Controversy over criticism of the government of Quebec. John FitzGerald 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support that name change. I'd probably support almost any reasonable name as long as it was more professional than the original title. Deet 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the original title is immediately obvious. A thought occurred to me yesterday – maybe the point is that some people in Quebec care what English Canada (if there is such a thing) thinks about them, while no one outside Quebec cares what Quebec thinks about them. For example, a piece of racist trash like Le livre noir du Canada anglais was just ignored in English Canada. This difference tells you volumes about what's wrong with Canada.

Another point is that the Quebec-bashers may have been set up as straw men whom both Quebec nationalists and pseudo-federalists from the rest of the country can look virtuous attacking. As I implied above, i don;t think the crowd who talk about bringing Quebec back into Confederation etc. are at all serious. When it comes to the crunch, they have nothing to offer. However, they can score a few points by appearing properly horrified at supposed Quebec bashers. John FitzGerald 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept what John FitzGerald has said, except that this article covers much more than simple criticism of the government of Quebec. I would suggest suggest Controversy over criticism of Quebec society to be more accurate and manageable article.

Incidentally, should a move be made to move all the various other "anti-X nationality" articles? Most nationalities can't be said to have a sepecific "anti-ideology" but still have articles under that name. Peregrine981 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your presumptions have been revealed: Quebec is not a nation.--Lance ^talk 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an entirely different issue. Should I have said "anti-X ethnicity/and or nationality" to avoid offending you? Peregrine981 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "offending" me. It is about you're imposing your political, or other, views on the article. I personally don't understand how someone can defend discrimination—that has been found by the Supreme Court of Canada to violate basic rights and freedoms of English-speaking Canadians—(and for which the "notwithstanding clause" was utilized to override such rights), in good faith. The whole purpose of this article, and the related attacks in other allegedly related articles, is to defend ethnic French supremacy in Quebec. Your aforementioned comment revealed that bias.--Lance ^talk 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you got me. I'm secretly a rabid Quebec nationalist. Through one turn of phrase all of my political positions are revealed for all to see. All of my edits are now suspect and just part of the vast machine of French ethnic conspiracy. Peregrine981 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Being honest with yourself is the first step to overcoming your prejudices.--Lance ^talk 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Since its placement on 30 September 2006, the citation request at the end of the opening sentence in which a definition of "Quebec bashing" is provided has gone unanswered. There has been considerable discussion as to what exactly is meant by "Quebec bashing", both on this page[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and as part of the failed AfD nomination [6]. Despite the best efforts of numerous editors, no definition of the term has been found outside of this article - meaning that the definition is the creation of Wikipedians. Therefore, 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.Victoriagirl 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that this article and its title have been introduced to bash others; namely targeting Jews and anyone who choses not to speak the language of the French Canadian ethnic minority in Quebec; or who resent that an ethnic minority in Canada imposes its language, worldview, and religion on others. Why are French-language criticisms of the race-based French Quebec society not part of the article?--Lance ^talk 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would propose that such a distinction should not be allowed to persist in this article. Peregrine981 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

I think Peregrine981's proposal for a title (Controversy over criticism of Quebec society) is the professional title everyone is looking for.

I would also like to clarify that I believe there are phenomena which are justifiably called Quebec-bashing (Jan Wong's effusions, for example), but that there are phenomena called Quebec-bashing which are legitimate criticism. The phenomenon could profitably also be discussed in the context of similar Canadian journalistic phenomena such as America-bashing, Anglo-bashing, and bashing of whatever nation or group happens to be on the outs at the moment (for example, coverage of the disintegration of Yugoslavia consisted largely of alternation between Croatia-bashing and Serbia-bashing). John FitzGerald 13:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also be clear about the scope of the new article. I would suggest that it should not be limited to non-French sources, and should not be limited only to "media controversies", for example including the flag stomping incident. How do we limit the scope of criticism though? Is criticism of the language laws to be considered here? How about criticism of premiers or the PQ? Peregrine981 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the language laws and of premiers or the PQ has been categorized as Quebec-bashing (for example, Mordecai Richler's criticism of the language laws etc. was categorized as Quebec-bashing, more or less, by Alain Dubuc). Another factor which should be mentioned is the insularity of the French and English journalistic worlds. The French media don't have offices in English Canada, while the English media don't have very many journalists who speak French. English-Canadian journalistic comment about Quebec is obviously limited by the inability of many commentators to read the Quebec papers or understand a news broadcast.

Incidentally, I see Victoriagirl's point about original research but think the proposed title should take care of that. Certainly there is English criticism of Quebec society, much of it close to loony (Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, for example), and certainly there is controversy about it. John FitzGerald 14:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could follow a rule that if we can find notable sources saying that incidents were "quebec bashing" or attacks on the society, then include it. Peregrine981 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If we adopted the new title we'd just have to document the controversy, or so it seems to me (but then I've got a bad cold). John FitzGerald 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny to see canadians tying to occult a reality of their society. You gotta show a lot of bad faith by classifying the branding political leaders as devils or claiming that a population are simpleton controled by separatist media a simple 'criticism of the Quebec society'. The phenomena exist and the title should stay. The debate should be around what's included in it. -Marc Gévry 9:22, 3 February

Anyone following this article would know that the debate over its title is an ongoing one. Much dissatisfaction has been expressed, many propsals have been made. M Gévry, has expressed his own dissatisfaction, and yet has stated that the title should stay. I ask that he please clarify his position. Victoriagirl 18:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An utterly different set of facts

Quote from page 13 of the 1839 Report on the Affairs of British North America by John Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham:

The difference of language produces misconceptions yet more fatal even than those which it occasions with respect to opinions: it aggravates the national animosities, by representing the all the event of the day in utterly different lights. The political misrepresentation of the facts is one of the incidents of a free press in every free country; but in nations in which all speak the same language, those who receive a misrepresentation from one side, have generally som means of learning the truth from the other. In Lower Canada however, where the French an English papers represent adverse opinions, and where no large portion of the community can read both languages with ease, those who receive the misrepresentations are rarely able to avail themselves of the means of correction. It is difficult to conceive the perversity with which the misrepresentation are habitually made, and the gross delusions which find currency among the people; they thus live in a world of misconceptions - in which each party is set against the other, not only by diversity of feelings and opinions, but by an actual belief in utterly different set of facts.

About the "portion of the community can read both languages with ease" which exists today, it is to be found primarily in Quebec, where knowledge of both English and French was at 40.8% in 2001 (37% for the French mother tongue population, 67% for the English mother tongue population). For comparison, 11.7% of Ontarians know both English and French (89.4% for the French mother tongue population, 8.2% for the English mother tongue population). The inability "to avail themselves of the means of correction" is certainly more a problem for people living in the rest of Canada than in Quebec, especially for everything that concerns the politics and culture of Quebec.

I think the best thing that can be done, if this article is ever going to be useful as a source of valid information, is to systematically improve each example case in a manner that the different POVs, those of anglo journalists and franco journalists, are put next to each other (allowing comparison) and next to a common set of facts (giving the reader the possiblity to see for themselves where the "gross delusions" are). -- Mathieugp 09:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Your point about English Canadians being unable to avail themselves of the means of correction is especially well taken. Back in the days when I followed the French press it seemed to me the discussion of public issues was usually of higher quality than in the English press, at least in la Presse or le Devoir. I imagine we'll find the gross delusions are on both sides, though, even on the same issue. I haven't been contributing lately because I've been sick, but I'm pretty well back to health and will see about applying myself to this. John FitzGerald 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

City of Westmount

Pccoutu removed the observation (by me) that calling people white Rhodesians might reasonably be interpreted as a smear. The observation seems fair and encyclopedic to me, and I have restored it with the point made a little clearer. Essentially you have a government reacting to opposition to its policies with anglo-bashing. If it is the consensus of everyone here that that observation is inappropriate, then take it out, but I do think it should be discussed first.

The solution may be to follow Mathieugp's suggestion for organizing discussion of these issues. For example, one might discuss the ways in which the citizens of Westmount are like white Rhodesians (um, many are white and anglophone) and the ways in which they are not (they don't have legally segregated housing, nor do they exclude francophones from the franchise). John FitzGerald 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The only concern that I have about the addition is that it is not supported by a reliable source and you admitted in the first sentence of your comment that it is original research. It may very well be a smear, or interpreted as such, but that is not a claim that Wikipedia should be making without attributing the claim and supporting it with a reliable source. --Bobblehead 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Without attributing what claim? Are you seriously arguing that the city of Westmount's resistance to the government of Quebec is similar to the actions of Rhodesia in breaking away from the British Empire? Are you seriously arguing that there is the slightest possibility that Landry was correct? Is that what's on your mind?

Oh, well. I'll try to reword it as neutrally as possible. John FitzGerald 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded it. If you can provide a source that shows that Westmount was refusing to accept amalgamation, that it restricts the franchise, that it enforces residential segregation, or that the language of Westmount is French, please correct the section. John FitzGerald 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Not a clue what you're reacting too. I'm not saying anything in regards to the city of Westmount's resistance being similar to the actions of Rhodesia trying to break away from the British Empire, nor am I saying that Landry's comments are accurate or inaccurate. I'm just saying that including in the article that Landry's comments are questionable and then identifying differences between Westmount and Rhodesia is original research because it is not supported by a reliable source. Surely there is a reliable source that has Westmount's response to Landry. ;) --Bobblehead 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A basic point is being missed here. Do I need a source to say that the first letter of Quebec is Q? That the sun rises in the east? And what is "original" about observing that Westmount wasn't planning to secede from Quebec? Is there a source in a refereed journal that says the opposite?

And what about Landry's claim in the first place? Isn't that original research? Has he published a scholarly comparison in a refereed journal establishing similarities between the government of Westmount and the government of Rhodesia? No, he hasn't. Is there a similarity between the government of Rhodesia and the government of Westmount? Not any that is attested in a refereed journal. And in the absence of any such evidence, what does Landry's observation constitute? At best, bullshit. I don't think the requirement for sources requires us to turn off our brains. Anyway, as I said, if you have a source to show that those comparisons are wrong, cite it.

Surely the accuracy of these allegations of Quebec-bashing as well as of the alleged Quebec-bashing itself is an issue of primary importance in understanding the phenomenon (which I think is part of a wider journalistic phenomenon which has been noted for many years). If the article is just going to be a recitation of various people's shooting their mouths off it's not going to amount to anything.

Finally, given the new title of the article, the whole incident is of questionable relevance anyway. It's not a controversy about criticism of Quebec society but about English people disagreeing with a plan of the provincial government's. John FitzGerald 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your fact tag. Perhaps you could explain just what type of citation is necessary to demonstrate that Westmount does not enforce residential racial segregation, for example? John FitzGerald 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added one reference, and will add some more once I can find the relevant by-laws on Westmount's website. Unfortunately I have some really boring paid work to do so have to give that priority. Still would like answers to my questions in this section. For example, are you seriously arguing that landry's claim is intellectually respectable, or could be? John FitzGerald 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, seriously.. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Then come back and be snarky. It doesn't matter how illogical or inaccurate Landry's comments are. If you're going to provide a rebuttal to his comment, it has to come from a Reliable Source, not from you. You also should read WP:OR and pay special attention to the part that says "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position" is prohibited. Unless you can find a source that specifically compares Rhodesia to the city of Westmount, then the comparisons shouldn't be included. As for your comment about needing a reliable source to prove that Quebec's first letter is Q and that the sun rises in the east, edit wars over the spelling of an article and basic scientific facts are common on Wikipedia. Take a stroll through WP:LAME and be amazed. :) Side note, may I suggest you use this source for your rebuttal. The lawyer for the demerger side, Guy Bertrand, says Landry was trying to influence the judge with his comments. Nothing discredits a person's comments more than pointing out they were made for political purposes.;) --Bobblehead 15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Were we made for the rules, or were the rules made for us, Bob? Anyway, I will admit my point about Landry was unclear. I'm just still trying to find out if you think that his assertion is credible – is opposing a plan of the Quebec government's Quebec-bashing? As for "Unless you can find a source that specifically compares Rhodesia to the city of Westmount, then the comparisons shouldn't be included," that seems like an over-interpretation of the rules to me. Pointing out that the Quebec and federal human rights codes and bills of rights prohibit segregationist policies like those of Rhodesia's (as I plan to do when i get the time) is not "analysis or synthesis," it's a statement of fact. And as for edit wars over whether the sun rises in the east, is that a bad thing? In discordia veritas.

Incidentally, your characterization of my remarks as merely "snarky" certainly seems to me to violate Wikipedia's rules about how discussions are to be conducted. It's also counter-productive. I must admit I removed a couple of snarkyish rejoinders from earlier versions of this post – I guess that's why there's a rule, eh, to prevent these discussions degenerating into slanging matches. If I have not made this clear, and it seems that I haven't, I appreciate your concern for the rules. I do think, though, that your interpretation of the rules is too strict to be practical. Perhaps we can reach a modus vivendi on this issue. John FitzGerald 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized later that another important consideration for me is that these rules are not set democratically. I would also like to reiterate that the question of the veracity of these claims is a thoroughly encyclopedic issue. Finally, I did make a remark back there about turning off one's brain that might have been taken the wrong way (my fault, of course). My point was simply that you obviously have a pretty good brain, but strict adherence to strictly interpreted rules established by other people seems to me to be preventing Wikipedia from getting the benefit of it. It's also preventing me from getting the benefit, since I didn't ask those questions about what you think about Landry's statement just to be polite. I thought perhaps you could edify me (and that, of course, would end the dispute). Some of the other people here and I have argued very determinedly on other pages (more determinedly than here), and I've learned a lot from them. John FitzGerald 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and as such there is a certain expectation of academic rigor one needs to follow in order to properly contribute. That rigor begins with the three core content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The inclusion of Landry's comments meets these three policies. You also seem to be spending too much time trying to determine if I think Landry's comments are credible when I've made it quite clear that whether or not I believe his comments are credible doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that his comments are verifiable from a reliable source. Landry's comments could be the biggest pile of drek you've ever seen while your rebuttal could be manna from god, but as long as Landry's comments are verifiable from a reliable source and yours are not, then Landry's comments can be included in the article and your rebuttal can not. Landy's comments seemed to have kicked up a mild controversy, surely there is a reliable source referring to his comments as being inaccurate. --Bobblehead 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you think Landry's comments are true does matter, because the truth of his comments is crucial to an understanding of the issue. And what was non-verifiable about the (sourced) assertion that Westmount demerged by means approved by the Quebec government and not unilaterally? The CBC isn't totally reliable, but no one has questioned the accuracy of the report I cited. Anyway, if news reports are adequate sources for Landry's comments, they're adequate sources for evaluating his comments. But it got removed.

And your comments about how much time I'm spending on trying to find out what you think violate Wikipedia's rules about the conduct of discussions. I'll decide how to pass my time, thanks. Right now I suspect the real answer you won't tell me your opinion is that you don;t have one, for the justifiable reason that in Seattle you're unable to get enough information about the issues involved. That's not intended as an insult – if you have no knowledge then having no opinion is the correct position. I may well be wrong, but unless you give in to candor we're not going to find out, are we? And until we do find out, I'm entitled to suspect that your restrictive and counterproductive interpretation of the rules may well be a result of your not being familiar with the issues discussed in the article. Without knowledge of the subject of an article, any attempt to apply rules to it runs a pretty good chance of being misguided. You can have your way for the moment, though – I'm taking a break from the article, for which I see little hope of improvement as things now stand. John FitzGerald 23:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I dd some research and discovered why my source is no longer appropriate, so that change is now fine with me. I would like to expand on something in my lasdt post, too – your opinion of the issue is also important because, if you're making changes that others find unreasonably strict and injurious to a properly encyclopedic treatment of the issue, it's possible that POV is being introduced. John FitzGerald 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify my questions:

1. Is not the truth, falsehood, or unverifiability of an allegation reported in an article relevant to the article?
2. Cannot the existence or non-existence of racial discrimination in Westmount be inferred from the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms? (your comments seem to imply to me that they can only be so inferred if someone has already inferred them in a published source)
3. Is not attributing people's disagreement with you to wilful obstinacy or obsession a violation of Wikipedia's rules?
4. Are you familiar with the subtext of this accusation – the iconic status of Westmount, for example?
5. If you are familiar with this subtext, could you let me know what your position on this issue is to confirm that your seemingly strict interpretations of Wikipedia rules (except the one about being insulting) are not influenced by POV?
6. Why do you consider news reports reliable sources of information? John FitzGerald 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of open communication I'll specify my own answers to these questions:

1. Yes, it is relevant. If an article was to say all residents of Seattle were tree-worshippers, I think we'd want to know if that was ture or not.

2. Yes, it can; citing an authority does not provide any additional probability that the assertion is correst (and perhaps provides less). If you want to argue that the evidence should be an absence of complaints under the Quebec charter, i could see that. To go back to the example of the Seattle tree-worshippers, the existence in Seattle of places of worship for other religions would constitute evidence regardless of whether a published source said it did.

3. Yes, it is, but unlike most people these days I think a healthy and civilized exchange of insults often helps clarify a topic.

4. I'm familiar with some of the subtext, having lived in Canada for a hell of a long time and having both English and French relatives in Montreal.

5. My position is that Bernard Landry is an excitable boy. When he goes off half-cocked he's at least being open about his opinions. I also don't think his opinion should be considered as graven in stone. However, because he did go off half-cocked, the issue of the truth of his assertions and of other people's is crucial to understanding the issue. I do not believe in any way that disagreeing with a higher level of government constitutes by itself an act of colonialism.

6. I don't consider news reports reliable sources of information, and less today than I ever did. Fact-checking seems to have been dispensed with. John FitzGerald 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, where's your published source saying I'm snarky?

Intervening a little here — I'm not exactly sure what the dispute is. My understanding of the issue is that you (John) are concerned that there is no rubuttal of Landry's comments. Is that correct? If so, all you need to do, is find an editorial or article somewhere that other people can also refer to, and use its arguments. Surely there must be one somewhere. The problem is that we cannot simply insert our own arguments (if someone challenges their verifiability). Hope that this helps. Peregrine981 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so John doesn't think I'm ignoring him. Peregrine981 just said everything I've been saying from the beginning. Just in a more succinct manner. Find a reliable source and a response to Harel's comments can be included. --Bobblehead 02:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And you guys are ignoring what I'm saying. For one thing, why is an editorial a reliable source, while the evidence of one's senses or of the legal code is not? According to what you have written, I would need a source to argue that 2 + 2 = 4. Anyway, you guys have succeeded in exercising your dead hand on this article. I would appreciate it, though, if you'd actually answer those questions I asked. Or are you afraid you wouldn't persuade me? Whatever the reasons for that belief, it seems profoundly unWikipedian to me. John FitzGerald 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it should help clear up some of your questions. An editorial may or may not be a reliable source, depending on what its being used to prove. But at least it is a notable source, with editorial oversight, that anyone can check. Our own reasoning is original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia wouldn't work if everyone could just insert their own theories into it. Reading from the legal code is essentially an act of synthesis, and thus original research. Especially in a case like this that requires interpretation. Technically we do need a source to back up a 2+2=4 claim, although I suspect that few would challenge the assertion even if it was unsourced. I'm curious about your assertion that we have exercized our "dead hand" on the article. Just because we are objecting to Original Research?

1. yes.
2. inferring amounts to original research.
3. possibly, though it depends on context and tone
4. Absolutely
5. my position on the de-emalgamation of Westmount? Leave it up to the city in question, as was done in the end.
6. not all news reports are necessarily reliable, but articles appearing in major Canadian papers are theoretically fact checked, have editorial oversight, and are at the very least notable. Peregrine981 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Because this discussion is getting general, I'm moving my reply to Peregrine981's talk page. John FitzGerald 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Quebec-bashing is back

An article has been restored under the old title. So much for consensus. John FitzGerald 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Steyn

To be included, an entry should have verifiable controversy surrounding it. Currently I see no evidence that the Mark Steyn quote cited generated any controversy. We have a link to an interview which people might or might not find offensive, but no evidence that anyone notable did comment. So, unless someone can find evidence of controversy, we should delete the Mark Steyn section. Peregrine981 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

About the example cases

First, some of the example cases appear to me to have nothing to do with the subject, assuming the subject is the phenomenon that was given the (apparently wrong and misleading) name of "Quebec bashing", and not whatever "Quebec bashing" could mean to all sorts of people in general depending on their point of view.

• Mark Steyn (where are the alleged unfounded and defamatory anti-Quebec statements?)
• City of Westmount (?)

Second, despite the very high number of reference notes to articles on the subject, I find that most of the example cases, which are supposed to be media controversy over incidents, are not very well documented and contextualized. I suggested a while ago to make a timeline of the events. I still think it could help to restore some neutrality in the article to have a section that contains purely factual information on who did what and when. -- Mathieugp 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification: My understanding is that the scope of this page is no longer limited simply to the media, or media controversies. Also, I see no problem with inclusion of city of westmount, as it is a documented case of "controversy over criticism of Quebec [government]" in this case. Peregrine981 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is no way for any controversy to be known without it being relayed by the media, so I am not sure what you mean. Since when has the "scope" of the article changed? Was there a vote and a consensus on this? When?

"Controversy over criticism of Quebec society" is off topic as far as I can tell. The subject is the trend of junk written on Quebec and almost exclusively streamed in the English language mass media. How is what Robert Guy Scully wrote about Quebec in a respectable American newspaper like the The Washington Post "criticism of Quebec society" and not pure vomit? Am I the only one to see a line between criticism, however negative it may be, and gross delusions that stink of racism? -- Mathieugp 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While I recognize "Quebec bashing" as a phrase I have heard, I've not yet seen a definition. Indeed, a citation needed tag applied to the contentious definition contained in this article has remained in place for five months or more. It would seem that some think "Quebec bashing" refers to "what is perceived and depicted by Quebec nationalists as defamatory anti-Quebec coverage in the English-language media", while others, including myself and the former pequist premier of Quebec Bernard Landry, believe it means something much more broad.

It is pretty much agreed upon that the article should be renamed if only to make clear that "all things perceived as bashing on Quebec, whatever that means" is not what "Quebec bashing" refers to in this article. Finding a definition is very easy. The trouble is finding a definition in English. In French, it even made it into a formal dictionary:

Dénigrement systématique du Québec, critiques anti-Québec, cassage de Québécois ou québécophobie in Dictionnaire québécois français : pour mieux se comprendre entre francophones. Lionel Meney, Montréal, Guérin, 1999, 2005

I am not expecting such a definition to make it in an English language reference work anytime soon. We do have a definition of "racist slips", but it only applies to individual discourses, not to the overall phenomenon we are treating here. To try to resolve the problem of the English definition and the ambiguity of the term, many replacement titles were suggested. None made consensus. At no point was "controversy over criticism" the subject of the article. -- Mathieugp 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There may be a call to retitle the article "Controversy over criticism of Quebec society in English-language media both in Canada and abroad" (or something similar), but this would not be at all accurate. Simply put, neither the "Brockville incident", nor the "City of Westmount" examples, both of which have existed in this article for several months, would fit into an entry with such a title. Oddly, the inclusion of the "Brockville incident", which has formed a part odf this article for over three months, has never been challenged by those users who prefer the narrow definition of "Quebec bashing".

It seems to me that the Brockville incident would be an example of the possible result of years of systematic bashing on Quebec in the media. The Quebec bashing is what came before the indident I think. -- Mathieugp 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, find Scully's comments offensive, and I am pleased to see that those who have contributed to the section in which they are discussed have done so in an unbiased, encyclopedic manner. Victoriagirl 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. Let's work on making the other examples as clear as this one then. The difficulty with many other examples is that some people actually think that asserting that Quebecers are more intolerant, antisemitic etc. than other Canadians is a not a slur, but legitimate criticism because they are continually fed misrepresentations of Quebec society in the only media they are daily connected to. It will be long to point out all the factual mistakes and the dishonest comparisons, but it is doable. I am busy with more serious subjects right now, but I will come back for sure. -- Mathieugp 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

During the renaming discussion we went over the changed focus of the article. It was determined that lacking a coherent english language definition of Quebec bashing, wikipedia could not include an article on it. Lacking sources to draw upon, such an article, or an article which is focused only on analysis of English language media discussion of Quebec, is unencyclopædic. It is not for wikipedia to make qualitative distinctions between what is criticism and what is vomit. Perhaps if you could find reputable sources you could make a case. Peregrine981 04:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all on such a move and the stated reason is clearly not sufficient in my opinion. The solution was to rename the article so the subject is clearer, not to change the subject. Now the title implies that the systematic denigration of Quebec in the English language media of Canada is not a phenomenon observable by anyone who bothers to do so, but a mere controversy entertained by Quebec nationalists. That is ridiculous. Quebec bashing or whatever it is to be called was denounced by Ray Conlogue of the Globe & Mail, Robert McKenzie of the Toronto Star and numerous Quebec journalists, not all nationalists, who of course publish mostly in French language media. That is the subject of this article. -- Mathieugp 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would have brought this up during the discussion concerning the move, but here we are. I don't understand why having a neutral article discussing general controversies about criticism of Quebec society is objectionable. We include numerous examples of "Quebec bashing" but also leave the scope open to broader examples. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be essays "proving" anything. They're meant to be encyclopædia articles, avoiding ridiculously specific topics. Are we supposed to include articles about "denigration of German national identity in the Jewish press of central Europe" or other similarly focused topics? The proliferation would be ridiculous. Peregrine981 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I regret that the response to my comments was inserted into my previous post [03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)] - not only does it confuse, it most certainly makes it more difficult for me to repond in turn. Need I add that it is against Wikipedia guidelines?

I am sorry you find it confusing. I find both your way and my way to be easy to follow. Maybe my way falls outside the guidelines, I don't know. So long as the indentation is consistent. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the definition of "Quebec bashing" included in the Dictionnaire québécois français. The definition reads: "Dénigrement systématique du Québec, critiques anti-Québec, cassage de Québécois ou québécophobie". At no point is there a mention of the media.

Here is the full definition:

(First, Quebec bashing redirects to bashing at page 182.)

bashing (n. masc.):

a) dénigrement systématique (n. masc.); critiques anti-(n. fém., anti-Québec, etc); volée de coups contre (n. fém.)

b) agression contre (n. fém.); chasse à (n. fém.); cassage de (n. masc., fam., péj.)

- Quebec bashing [dénigrement systématique du Québec] : critiques anti-Québec; cassage de Québécois; québécophobie

C'est pourquoi on traite les souverainistes de « fascistes », de « racistes », d'« antisémites », de « tribalistes », etc. Si le « Quebec bashing » sert à salir la réputation du Québec à l'étranger, il permet aussi de nourrir chez les non-francophones la peur d'un Québec souverain qui martyriserait ses minorités (LD) [empr. dir. à l'anglais]

The notion that the media relays the critiques anti-Québec is very much implied I believe. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the "Brockville incident". That this shameful episode is a "possible" result of Quebec bashing within the media, is purely speculative. Why not make the same claim for the stance taken by the Mayor of Westmount and his council?

It is more speculative than to claim that stepping on a flag examplifies the dénigrement systématique du Québec. What is the object of their critiques? Where are the anti-Quebec statements? Where are the unfounded accusations? This incident is one step further. They were not quite trying to argue a point using arguments. "Mark Steyn" and "City of Westmount" are the two example cases I suggested didn't fit the subject. In the case of Brookville, we can probably find the material before the incident, but it is unlikely that we can connect the trail of events with certainty. It would be original research. What is not original research and deserves to be in this article are the notorious cases of Quebec bashing that are the demonization of Jacques Parizeau, turned number one xenophobe over night and Esther Delisle's The Traitor and the Jew. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the final comment. As stated above, I do not agree that the subject of the article has changed, rather that the title has changed to better reflect the contents.

On a related note, I cannot for a moment agree with the supposition that there is a "systematic" denigration of Quebec in the country's English language media. In fact, I have yet to see any attempt to demonstrate that that these few pieces produced by The National Post, The Globe and Mail, Penguin Books, the CBC, The Montreal Mirror, Key Porter Books, and The Ottawa Citizen (in league with The New Yorker and The Washington Post) are all part of some sort of methodical, conceived plan. Victoriagirl 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody could ever demonstrate any sort of "methodical, conceived plan" out of these pieces, that is for sure. These examples do not constitute a valid sample of the whole. Some don't even belong. Luckily, we do not have to prove a "sort of methodical, conceived plan" as nobody advanced such ridiculous conspirationist theory except Diane Francis about imaginary separatists or Mordecai Richler about imaginary anti-semitic Patriotes. The delusions are more to be found there I think. "Systematic" doesn't imply a conceived plan. It implies following a system, a scheme, a recognizable pattern. 1) The themes are recurrents, nameable and named, 2) the targets are systematic (Quebec's symbols, institutions, values, political personalities), 3) the attacks are conducted using the most typical techniques of propaganda (personal attacks, false analogies, false attributions, faulty generalizations, argumentum ad nauseam, appeal to fear, demonization, reductio ad Hitlerum, oversimplification, scapegoating etc), and 4) the justifications for it all are publically know since at least October 1970 (to counter separatism at all cost). Today, there is a sizeable readership for this kind of junk, so more people, unrelated to the initional contributors, add to it all the time. The most exhaustive lists of examples I think are to be found in Jean-François Lisée's In the Eye of the Eagle and Guy Bouthillier's L'obsession ethnique. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I’ll begin by stating, yet again, that it clearly against Wikipedia guidelines to insert one’s comments into the post of another user. To do so after such action has been pointed to is beyond the pale.

That said, I offer my comments:

Concerning the definition of “Quebec bashing” provided by the Dictionnaire québécois français I’m afraid I was schooled to believe that dictionaries provide definitions, not implications. I very much disagree that the words “critiques anti-Québec” implicate the media. What’s more, the balance of the definition clearly indicates that the definition is not exclusive to the media.

Concerning the Brockville incident. For many months this section remained unchallenged by those promoting the idea of “Quebec bashing” as a term that applied exclusively to actions within the media. Yesterday, the notion was then put forth that these actions were the result of the bashing of Quebec within the media. Today it is being presented as something that is not in any way critical of Quebec, that stamping on the flag is not an anti-Quebec act. On this final stance, I agree. The act was not intended as a criticism of Quebec, rather the members of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada were, in fact, protesting against Ontario’s French-language services legislation (see the rather ironically titled “Quebec flag incident exploited, Ontario NDP leader declares.” The Globe and Mail 29 May 1990, A5). As Jacques Parizeau has been inserted into the argument, I will address his inclusion as well. In what way, I wonder, has Parizeau been demonized? Has he received criticisms within the English-language media that the French-language media has not also made? As for Esther Deslisle, also inserted into the argument: Le traître et le Juif is not an English-language work. Must we now accept French-language works in translation as evidence of Quebec bashing within the English-language media?

Finally, to describe something as “systematic” is, according to The Oxford English Dictionary, to say it is “methodical; done or conceived according to a plan or system.” Assuming this not to be true - that the companies in question aren't in league with each other - it is truly pathetic that these media companies, Canadian and otherwise, seem incapable of planting more than a few articles or “personalities” in their grand schemes. Victoriagirl 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me the expression "beyond the pale" which I had never seen written or heard before. Since this poses a problem to our communication, I will respond to you by strickly following one of the suggested ways to do so inside talk pages according to the Wikipedia guideline to that effect. But you will have to learn to accept that a lot of people reply the way I do, using the old school mailing list/news/e-mail point by point method.

Concerning your reply to my posting the full definition, you are correct, dictionaries provide definitions. This definition, as made obvious by the example it provides, implies the notion of a phenomenon made visible because it is relayed through mass media. The example provided in the dictionary translates to "That is why we call the sovereignists "fascists", "racists", "antisemites", "tribalists", etc. If "Quebec bashing " serves to stain the reputation of Québec abroad, it also allows the nourishing among non-francophones of a fear of a sovereign Québec that would martyrize its minorities". If this does not imply what I think it implies, I am sorry, but I don't see it. Please explain your reasoning.

To your writing "That stamping on the flag is not an anti-Quebec act", I can only ask: where did you get that from? Stamping on any flag in public, and proudly do so when the journalists arrive at the scene is very much anti-[State-the-flag-represents]. I was making a necessary distinction between this rather isolated incident, which is way pass the "criticism" of Quebec, whatever its nature or tone, and the other incidents which contribute to a constant misrepresentation of Quebec in English language media. In this case, no journalist was misrepresenting Quebec in showing a small group of Ontarians express their anger. If it ever could serve the staining campain of any side, it would be that of those who would try to generalize this hatred of Quebec to all Ontarians. But this would be a false generalization.

"In what way, I wonder, has Parizeau been demonized? Has he received criticisms within the English-language media that the French-language media has not also made?" ????????!!!!! Was Parizeau demonized? Good God!! I will certainly not be able to address this issue correctly in this short reply. Here is a glimpse: How many times do you think "Money and ethnic votes" was printed in English since 1995? People wrote or implied that this was evidence of his xenophobia and all kinds of irrational BS, giving it an interpretation that is just pure lie. Some people wrote that that "Money" referred to Jews!!!! and got away with it! talk about paranoia and delusion!! Parizeau's previous public and recorded declarations make it clear, without a doubt, that 1) "Money" referred to the sums spent to promote the NO side in violation of Quebec referendum law and 2) les votes ethniques referred to quasi-unanimous NO votes by many non-francophone cultural minorities. A vote ethnique is statistical jargon for a phenomenon whereby a given community votes consistently for a given option is a dinstinguishable manner. Political correctedness was broken by the Premier of Quebec. He said "we" the francophones in the majority voted for independence. Indeed, unlike in 1980, where the split inside the francophone majority group was 50/50, "we", the 61% of francophones, voted for the sovereignty option in 1995. The phrase vote ethnique was used before and continues to be used today by political analysts whose job is to make sense of vote results. Moreover, during the referendum campaign, he stated, live on TV, that were the referendum not to pass, he would resign as premier. So all the people who wrote that he had resigned or had been made to resign because of this speech were plain wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people who watched Quebec French language TV know this for a fact. Knowing the facts invalides irrational POVs.

In light of who Parizeau is (a man who speaks French and English fluently, lived and studied in London for many years, who was converted to the sovereignist caused by his first wife, of Polish origin) of what he publicly said and wrote before and after the fact (most of it never translated in English of course), there is no reasonable person on Earth who could come to the conclusion the media most opposed to his party reached because of two miserable words reinterpreted out of their rightful context.

On this very incident, the English language media of Canada presented an array of opinions, from extreme to moderate, but all united in favour of exploiting this breach of political correctedness to stain the reputation of the man and the whole movement he represents. Thanks to those morons, there is now a tabou on the use, whatever the context, of the English word "ethnic" and the French word "ethnique" in Canada. As if we needed this in the current state of the dialogue.

The French language media also presented an array of opinions, from extreme to moderate, however they were totally non-uniform. Yes, many sovereignists stated their disaproval of the speech but not at all for the reasons presented to Anglophone Canadians. The positions taken by some of them, by reinforcing the dishonest interpretation made by unethnical journalists, literally divided the PQ ranks. The continued media lynching of nationalist leaders, over many years, culminated in Parizeau and Bouchard suing for defamation in 1999. They won the first round in court and then Lafferty settled it out of court after. Lucien Bouchard would, a few years later, resign over a ridiculous controversy concerning Yves Michaud's alleged anti-semitic statements. I challenge anyone to give evidence that Michaud said anything expressing anti-semitism. What did Michaud, godfather of a Jewish child, talk about that was so awful? The same thing Parizeau talked: the result of the 1995 referendum + the unjust accusations made against Lionel Groulx. There is nothing wrong in talking about public facts (available online on the Website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec) which show 1) the monolithic vote of non-francophones cultural communities (to try to make sense of it) and 2) the francophone vote which was split 60/40. To accuse someone of being xenophobic for using the word "ethnic" is complete madness. To accuse a dead man (Groulx) of being antisemtic when he was a humanist scholar is as low as it can get.

Going back to Parizeau, I'll point you to a translation of an article written by Parizeau in Le Devoir here: http://english.republiquelibre.org/index.php?title=Who_are_we%3F_Where_are_we_going%3F The original was published on Oct. 30 1996, exactly one year after the referendum. In this opinion text, in which he briefly discusses the results of the referendum (about halfway through), is entirely consistent with whatever Parizeau ever said or wrote before or after October 30 1995 and I challenge anyone to prove otherwize.

About you writing "Le traître et le Juif is not an English-language work. Must we now accept French-language works in translation as evidence of Quebec bashing within the English-language media?" Modercai published his book in May 1992, while Esther defended her thesis and obtained her Ph.D some 4 months later in September. To my knowledge, never before had a not-yet-defended thesis been talked about so much in mass media. Again, the English language media gave a biased coverage of it all. The French language media covered the issue, but all kinds of POV were shown to the public and francophones opinions on the subject are non-uniform today. The original work could have been written in latin. This is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.

The powers that you have when you own a daily newspaper are not so great that you can write whatever you want in it. But you do have the power to hire or not to hire people to your liking. You do have the power to hire an chief editor who will cover certain or all topics according to a policy of your own device. You are, even if you do not like it, dependend upon the people who advertize in your paper. You can manipulate, but you can also be manipulated. The powers people have at their disposal when they own a TV station broadcasting news are similar but the results are much more effective. It is not so much about private plans, it is about the way institutions work and how they fit in the social system.

After much reflection, I suggest renaming the article to Perceived bias in the representation of Quebec society in English language media. At least that way we are naming the issue properly (I hope) and all the people who will deny that there is, for a fact, evidence of a bias (even if we put it right under their nose) will be be happy because it will be about how it is "perceived", not how it "is". After all, it is about how reality is being perceived differently inside two communities distinct by their institutions, language, culture and history, because the same events are reported an presented differently. And the reason why it became an issue in the first place is that many bilingual journalists who know Quebec the way Quebecers generally know it have noticed how what is presented to a presumably English-only audience on the subject of Quebec is way too often a "political misrepresentation of the facts". When the French language media misrepresents something about English Canada, because of the ignorance of a dummy francophone-only journalist, and it does happen although it is rare since most Quebec journalists understand English, all the federalist-owned media (that would be the majority of them) are at the disposal of those who would want to correct the error. And they usually do. -- Mathieugp 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to make my comments as brief as possible as I fear this thread is doing nothing to further this article, rather it would appear to be decending into a lengthy political debate.

Again, my comment concerning the definition of "Quebec bashing" as provided in the Dictionnaire québécois français : pour mieux se comprendre entre francophones is that it in no way limits the use to the media, which has often been argued by those seeking a narrower definition than that which is accepted by myself and some other users.

I have been quoted as writing "That stamping on the flag is not an anti-Quebec act". In fact, this is a sentence fragment, which is perhaps best referred to in context: "For many months this section remained unchallenged by those promoting the idea of “Quebec bashing” as a term that applied exclusively to actions within the media. Yesterday, the notion was then put forth that these actions were the result of the bashing of Quebec within the media. Today it is being presented as something that is not in any way critical of Quebec, that stamping on the flag is not an anti-Quebec act." What I was referring to is the question: "Where are the anti-Quebec statements?" It appears I have misunderstood the point the user was attempting to make.

I have nothing more to add on Jacques Parizeau or Esther Delisle. Though I have opinions concerning Lucien Bouchard, Lionel Groulx, the media, bilingualism in the media, and the publication of translation (in both languages), I have no time to enter into political debate. My intent in entering this discussion was to address the new title. And so... at the risk of belabouring the point, "Perceived bias in the representation of Quebec society in English language media" and the previous title proposal ("Anti-Quebec discourse in English language media") fail to take into account criticisms made by those outside the media currently found within the article. Victoriagirl 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any sort of a reasoned argument for your claim that the definition does not imply that the phenomenon which this article covers is NOT about incidents relayed through the media. Can you name one incident that you or I or anyone did not gain knowledge of through the media? How else would you or I or anyone gained knowledge of it otherwize? Word of mouth? When you write "fail to take into account criticisms made by those outside the media currently found within the article", which part of the article are you referring to? -- Mathieugp 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will begin be answering your final question: the City of Westmount section. In fact, this point of discussion was started with your observation that The City of Westmount section had nothing to do with what had been termed "Quebec bashing". In this case, the stance of a mayor and city council - a body outside the media - brought about an accusation of "Quebec bashing".

Concerning the first two questions, are you now suggesting that the mere reporting of what might be perceived as anti-Quebec sentiment is in itself a form of "Quebec bashing", "Perceived bias in the representation of Quebec society in English language media", "Anti-Quebec discourse in English language media", or whatever you choose to call it? Victoriagirl 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The mayor of Westmount suggested that the new policy of municipal merger intended to deprive historial English towns of the West Island of their bilingual institutions, echoing similar rubbish published in the media. In reaction to this, Bernard Landry stated that the mayor was falling into Quebec bashing. All of it is based on misreporting, confusion and hearsay. The Quebec bashing content is what the mayor echoed. He is not the source. I guess the source is what we would have to search for to write anything of substance on this aspect of the municipal merger controversy. An article about the bias in the representation of Quebec society in English language media would naturally include both the way in which it is accomplished (misreporting, ignoring certain opinions, amplifying others, letting hate speech slip in etc. as well as the actual "content" making up the representation (which would include, although not exclusively, the anti-Quebec discourse in its various forms). Here is an example of misrepresentation that doesn't have anything to do with Quebec bashing, but a lot to do with a subject of crucial importance which was misreported in English, the so-called Supreme Court opinion of 1998 on the secession of Quebec:

"A little after the broadcast of the Supreme Court's opinion, I wrote an article in English to blame the covering of the event by English language media and I submitted it to the Globe and Mail and The Gazette: neither one has accepted to publish it. Even though there is no reason to see discrimination in these refusals, reading the article by Denis Monière (Le Devoir, September 2) and especially the subtitle "the anglophone public receives information which tends to reduce the visibility of the sovereignist forces whereas the French-speaking public receives information better shared between the federalist and sovereignist speakers", it appeared to me that both the content of my text and the refusal by the newspaper supported the remarks made by professeur Monière. -- Stephen Clarkson (Les médias anglophones et l'avis de la cour, Le Devoir, September 5-6 1998)

That is just one example of something that would fit in an article named according to my last suggestion. It would allow to cover the topic in a more meaningful and encyclopedic way I believe and it would attenuate the controversy (over the Quebec bashing article) by placing the "Quebec bashing" part in its rightful context. -- Mathieugp 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to support the statement that the mayor of Westmount was merely repeating "rubbish published in the media"? I must add that Professor Clarkson is by no means the only academic to have an unsolicited opinion piece passed over by a newspaper (or, in this case, two) - this is in no way uncommon. Victoriagirl 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A problem is that according to WP:NOR, which is advocated here by Bobblehead and Peregrine981, you have to have a source for saying that Westmount's position constitutes criticism of Quebec society. Actually, that would seem reasonable here, since we probably disagree about whether it does constitute such criticism, but a further problem is Wikipeida's lousy standards of reliability for sources. I have suggested below a new title of Accusations of Quebec-bashing, which would get around the problem, and Victoriagirl has suggested Anti-Quebec sentiment (which seems to me, though, to require a reliable source). John FitzGerald 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

When it comes right down to it, City of Westmount should come out. The only "evidence" of Quebec-bashing is Bernard Landry's assertion that a perfectly legal action of the City of Westmount was Quebec-bashing; certainly Westmount wasn't criticizing Quebec society. As for the systematic denigration of Quebec in the English press, I would like, with Victoriagirl, to see some evidence of the "system". As I've noted in the discussion about Esther Delisle, her first book and her Ph. D. thesis were represented in Quebec (by Gary Caldwell, for example) as part of a conspiracy to represent Quebec in the English media as irresponsible and incapable of self-government, when in fact the issue was largely ignored by the English press. Even when it wasn't ignored by the English press, it was ignored by the people reading or watching the English press. I doubt one English Canadian in 10,000 could tell you who Esther Delisle is.

No, but they for sure read first hand or heard about sensational cases of anti-semitism in nationalist circles of Quebec, which is exactly how propaganda works. English-speaking Canadians are today likely to receive the idea that maybe Quebec is not a good place to live if you are not a native French-speaker born of French-Canadian parents. They would dismiss this idea as unfounded, like most Quebecers would do, if they were not fed the same misrepresentations over and over again in major media. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article could also be broadened to include the parallel phenomenon: anglobashing. Normand Lester's retailing of a story which has been shown by historians to be untrue, and of stories about things done before Canada even existed, as signs of English Canadians' evil ways (even when they were about the British), Journal de Montréal's accusations against Royal Orr, for example, or Alain Dubuc's misrepresentation of Mordecai Richler in the Toronto Star, or the accusation that English Canadian journalists were conspiring with the Mohawks at Kanawake, or even the idea that English Canadians spend most of their time thinking up ways to make Quebec look bad. John FitzGerald 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglophone-Canada-bashing in French Quebec media is a subject I would not object to if it were not for the obvious fact that it would be original research, i.e., there are to my knowledge no equivalent to Jean-François Lisée's In the Eye of the Eagle and Guy Bouthillier's L'obsession ethnique, Norman Lester's The Black Book of English Canada, the last one being a series of works by a journalist completely fed up by the continuous flow of anti-Quebec junk he read in English all the time. This article 2002 suggested that retired Toronto Star journalist Robert McKenzie is preparing a book on Quebec bashing:

Norman Delisle, Robert McKenzie fait ses adieux au journalisme, in Trente, Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, February 2002

-- Mathieugp 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no studies, but there is plenty of anti-English junk which could legitimately be cited. Le livre noir is a pretty continuous flow of anti-English junk, come to think of it. What I would like to see is an interpretation of this issue within a broader appreciation of how the Canadian press works. To my mind it works, as the American press does, by diverting attention from real issues. In the English-Canadian press both the pro and anti-Quebec crowd carry out this function. Similarly the coverage of health care in the English-Canadian press is entirely mystificatory. John FitzGerald 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also: Re my comment about Esther Delisle you note "No, but they for sure read first hand or heard about sensational cases of anti-semitism in nationalist circles of Quebec, which is exactly how propaganda works." I suspect 99.9% didn't. There are hardly any English press references to her. What English Canadians have heard, however, is a lot of press about the antisemitism of English-Canadian leaders of the period. Irving Abella got an English-Canadian best-seller out of the topic. We've also had a tremendous amount of press about the anti-Chinese actions of English-Canadian leaders of the period, not to forget what we've heard about anti-Sikh actions. As for the articles about Delisle being propaganda, I think there's a definite possibilty of that, but they definitely did not work.

As for your remarks about system, it seems to me this system you infer is so far only a hypothetical construct. You write "Assuming this not to be true - that the companies in question aren't in league with each other - it is truly pathetic that these media companies, Canadian and otherwise, seem incapable of planting more than a few articles or 'personalities' in their grand schemes." Do you have any concrete evidence that Québecor, Canwest, Bell Globemedia, and Torstar are in league, or that they have agreed on a "grand scheme"? I realize that may not be what you meant to imply, but if it ain't, what did you mean to imply? I have trouble with metaphor. John FitzGerald 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of confusion concerning the author of the quote contained in your second paragaph. For the record, I wrote "Assuming this not to be true - that the companies in question aren't in league with each other - it is truly pathetic that these media companies, Canadian and otherwise, seem incapable of planting more than a few articles or 'personalities' in their grand schemes." Here, I was being sarcastic, referring to my previous post in which I'd questioned the notion that there was a "systematic" denigration of the province in Canada's English language media. I didn't mean for a moment to suggest that there was, in fact, some sort of grand scheme. Just to clarify. Victoriagirl 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my fault. I got confused by the interpolated posts and thought that was Mathieugp's post. I apologize wholeheartedly. I been sick. My apologies to Mathieugp, too. Anyway, my position is that all this bashing is essential to Canadian unity. Every part of the coutry justifies itself by hating some other part, and they feel united as a country when they all hate Toronto. And on that note I'm going to let this article mature for a while before getting involved with it again. Seeing all these good intentions screw up is depressing. John FitzGerald 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I llike Mathieugp's suggestion for renaming the article, but "Quebec-bashing" still has the advantage of being short. I agree with Mathieugp that the anglo press is largely clueless about Quebec, and consequently is both overly negative and overly positive about events in Quebec (and often fails to report important events). However, I don't believe that speaking two languages is enough to make you unbiased or dependable – Alain Dubuc is an example (I have that clipping somewhere; I'll look for it). As for its being original research, I think that would be true only if it were represented as a recognized phenomenon. If a few examples were provided of lack of objectivity in the Quebec press it might be helpful. I agree that at least one of the ideas I have presented here in this respect would definitely be original research, though. John FitzGerald 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "Brockville incident" section

Newspaper articles connected to what has been here referred to as the "Brockville incident" indicate that the act in question cannot be concidered a criticism of Quebec. In fact, this protest by the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, was intented as a criticism of Ontario’s French-language services legislation (see “Quebec flag incident exploited, Ontario NDP leader declares.” The Globe and Mail 29 May 1990, A5). I have removed the section. Victoriagirl 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They did stomp on a Quebec flag, though, and this act of a handful of wackos was treated as a sign of a vast conspiracy against Quebec. John FitzGerald 14:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on Adrien Arcand

Please be careful when saying Adrien Arcand was a fascist. There was never any Fascism stricto sensu in Canada, if we understand it as a political regime like Mussolini's. Arcand was of course influenced by the fascist (and nazi) ideology; but it is important to remember that he was a stong catholic and fascism was for him a mean to fight communism. Arcand was mainly a canadian nationalist and many of his partisans were from Toronto and Winnipeg; his positions have nothing to do with those of Lionel Groulx who was a french-canadian (québécois) nationalist. Arcand even tried to win elections with his party in Ontario. Therefore, it is a fallacy to make an appeal to Arcand for "Québec bashing". AlsBeruf 28.01.2007

Aracnd was an avowed fascist who spouted ffascist ideology and used fascist symbolism. Lafarge Dodger

City of Westmount -- where's the criticism?

I have a new concern about the section about Westmount. The article is called "Controversy over criticism of Quebec society." As far as I can see, Westmount did not criticize Quebec society. According to the standards advocated in the other section about Westmount on this page, a source must be provided which demonstrates that Westmount's position was critical of Quebec society. While I do not agree with much of what has been said on this page about original reearch, an unsourced claim that the municipal government of Westmount criticized Quebec society seems clearly to me to be original research. John FitzGerald 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Were the mayor and council of the City of Westmount critical of Quebec society? I have yet to see no evidence that they were. That said, they were accused of doing so by Bernard Landry, who dismissed their stance as "Quebec bashing". Of course, the definition of this term has been debated at great length in this forum, some claiming that the "Quebec bashing" refers solely to criticisms found within the media (a definition which Landry's statement negates), while others have argued that the expression refers to something not confined to the media. However, I have yet to see it argued that the term "Quebec bashing" has nothing to do with criticism, fair or unfair, of Quebec. I understand that there may be an argument against the inclusion of accusations of unfair criticism when it would appear to some users (myselfd included) that there were none, but imagine this would raise the issue of NPOV. Victoriagirl 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the policies ably described by Bobblehead and Peregrine981 seem to require a secondary source to justify describing the actions of Westmount council as criticism of Quebec society (controversy over which is the subject of this article). The people making the accusations are not reliable secondary sources. Certain people accused Iraq of having WMDs (or at least plans to make them) and of having connections with al-Qaeda, but making those accusations did not turn those people into reliable sources. Without sourced verification all we can conclude is that the controversy was over Landry shooting his mouth off (not a criticism of Mr. Landry – as another person of Norman heritage I see great value in the habit, even in this instance). John FitzGerald 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, the communication between you, Bobblehead and Peregrine981, has to do with comment on what was said, not the fact that it was said. Landry's accusation is well-documented. While the claim may be argued as being unfounded - as indeed it was by Jean Charest and Joseph Gabary - this in no way negates that it was made. Turning to the WMD analogy. True, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell were shown to be false - unreliable - but their statements remain highly relevant to writing on the events leading up to the war. Victoriagirl 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the claim wasn't made. I'm saying that according to WP:NOR it cannot be presented as a response to criticism of Quebec society without a source being provided for the assertion that the municipality of Westmount's actions constituted criticism of Quebec society. As for the WMD example, WP:Verifiability adduces reliability, not relevance, as the necessary characteristic of a source. John FitzGerald 14:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that a source need be provided for the assertion that the city's stance amounted to criticism. Simply put, the accusation was made in a public statement by Bernard Landry. The sticking point seems to be the proposal that a secondary source is needed to provide justification of the statement. On this I disagree. If I may point to another example featured in the article: under Lawrence Martin we are presented with the accusations of Maryse Potvin and no one else. The only difference I perceive is that Potvin detailed what she perceived as criticism, while Landry did not. I may disagree with Landry, I may even scratch my head wondering what he is on about, but to discount his accusation simply because I cannot see Westmount's criticism of Quebec is to express a point of view. That Landry made the statement is verifiable - whether or not was called for is a judgement call.

On a related note, I'm having second thoughts concerning my removal of the Brockville incident. While it is true that the protest by Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, was directed at Ontario’s French-language services legislation, it was perceived generally as an attack on Quebec. As with the case of the City of Westmount, the accusation was made. I propose returning the example to the article in an expanded form. Victoriagirl 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and I have elsewhere on this page argued similar points, but if we're going to follow the rules about original research I believe a secondary source is required. Part of the problem is the change in the title of the article. If the title were still Quebec-bashing I wouldn't have a problem. However, the NOR policy quite clearly implies that any inference drawn about the character of anything must be sourced.

I've changed my mind about Brockville, too. As a reasonable person, I believe that stomping on a Quebec flag implies criticism of Quebec. However, to follow Wikipedia policy a secondary source must be provided asserting that it was criticism of Quebec society. Them's the rules. As I've stated elsewhere on this page, I think these rules are too restrictive in general, but I think applying them to this article could be useful. Specifically, applying them would establish an objective standard by which these assertions could be evaluated.

To go back to my WMD example, you don't verify the existence of a WMD program in Iraq by adducing Dick Cheney's claim that there was one. He is an interested party. John FitzGerald 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understand, the debate comes down to whether the simple claim of criticism (fair or unfair, real or imagined) should be included. I'm afraid I still don't see where original research enters into the equation. Simply put, the stance of a certain city council regarding amalgamation was claimed to be a criticism of Quebec. Again, while I don't understand the logic behind Landry's summation, I cannot deny that the statement was made.

This whole discussion has lead me to question other examples. For example, in what way is Don Cherry's comment the residents of Sault Saint Marie a criticism of Quebec society? How is his his statement about visors being worn by European and French players in any way "a criticism of Quebec society, government, or institutions" (as Controversy over criticism of Quebec society, is defined)? Even his statement that Bloc MPs were "whiners" doesn't match the current definition. I encourage others to join in our discussion. Victoriagirl 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that an assertion that Westmount criticized Quebec society constitutes an inference, and therefore must be properly sourced according to WP:NOR. The article is not called "Controversy over assertions someone says are criticism of Quebec society." Mr. Landry does not satisfy the criteria for a source described at WP:Verifiabiity.

Anyway, I'm making inquiries at WP:NOR which I hope eventually will help clarify these issues. The only comment I've had there so far is that original research is unclear, poorly defined, or controversial, which seems to make much of this article OR. I also encourage others to join in the discussion here. I realize I may have tired people out already, but my heart is pure. I think this article could be a lot harder-hitting and informative if these issues were resolved. John FitzGerald 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Landry clearly said that Westmount was "Quebec bashing" (although in response to the mayor's response to the Minister, NOT in their original position). We circle back to the original problem with this article: it is hard to find a commonly accepted definition of "Quebec bashing" in English. Should we assume that he meant it in its French connotation?

With regard to Cherry's comments about visors, you could say that its a criticism of Quebec sports culture, and therefore society in general. The complaint about Bloc MPs could be construed as cirticism of Quebec government, although they weren't part of the actual government apparatus, they were part of the government culture. However, I'm starting to worry a bit about the whole article. Again we seem to be circling back to talking about a preconceived notion of "Quebec bashing". Should we be including items which are clearly criticisms of Quebec's political elite? Is that really a valid topic for an article? People regularly make innumerable criticisms of political figures all over the world, but we don't have articles detailing them down to the minutest detail. For example, a criticism of a bloc MP for being a "whiner" is not crossing the line of racist discourse. MPs are called whiners all the time. This just happened to be a group of MPs all from Quebec. Does that make it an implicit criticism of all of Quebec? I really don't think so.

We may need to provide a far more specific topic for such an article, lest it circle back to its essay-like beginnings. Peregrine981 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine981 asks "Does that make it an implied criticism of Quebec? I don't think so." According to WP:NOR, that question must be answered by reference to an adequate source. In describing the Westmount example we cannot assume that opposing a policy of the Quebec government is necessarily criticism of Quebec society. André Boisclair routinely opposes policies of the Quebec government without people concluding that he's criticizing Quebec society. The idea that Westmount's opposition constitutes criticism is an inference. An unsourced inference (or "synthesis") constitutes original research, and avoiding original research is very important to some people on this page.

Besides that, the point is important in understanding the phenomenon. Was Landry responding to an attack on Quebec or not? WP:NOR requires that the question be answered by providing a source.

A simple way to solve these problems would be to change the title to Accusations of Quebec-bashing. John FitzGerald 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this type of article is that "Quebec bashing" is in the eye of the beholder and isn't recognized until after someone makes the claim. In the case of the Westmount section, the claim was made and reported in a reliable source, generally that is an acceptable threshold for inclusion. However, NPOV would dictate that a something questioning that it was Quebec bashing be included if there was a reliable source for that. If the article's title is to be used as the context of the article, than one side claiming Quebec bashing while the other side claiming it was would meet that context. That being said, how many examples of this phenomena are required? The article is supposed to be about explaining the phenomena, not documenting its instances, so the loss of the Westmount section would not unduly harm the article, IMHO. Since we're talking about content, why is the example section at the top of the article? It should be at the bottom of the article once one has made it through the important parts. I'm also curious about the inclusion of the First Nations section. It doesn't appear to be about the topic, but rather about Quebec's treatment of the First Nations. So if reliable sources are found, it should be included in either the First Nations' article, or Quebec's, but doesn't seem to be appropriate for this one. --Bobblehead 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

While Bobblehead is, of course, correct that "Quebec bashing" is in the eye of the beholder, the whole issue is further confused by the simple fact that there is no English language definition for the term other than that presented in this article. As I argued prior to the name change, to create an article around an undefined term, attempt to come to a consensus as to meaning, and then build an article around that consensus smacks of original research. Despite a name change, the current problems are, I feel, directly attributable to this article's origins. Why, one wonders, have the examples excluded criticisms made by those who identify themselves as sovereignists? Why include Don Cherry's comment to the residents of Sault Sainte Marie, a city over 1500 kilometres away from the Quebec/Ontario border? Not only did he make no mention of Quebec, he didn't mention French... or German... or Cree... or Esperanto. Why include his claim that most NHL players who wear visors are either European or French, but not Lise Payette's calling women who were on the "No" side of the 1980 referendum "Yvettes"? Cherry's comments concern a minute percentage of the Quebec population, while Payette's concerned the majority of women of voting age within the province. What's more, Payette's comments are historically significant as they had a devastating effect on the campaign for the "Yes" side.

A final comment, perhaps John FitzGerald is on to something with the proposed title "Accusations of Quebec-bashing". Given the absence of a definition for “Quebec bashing”, “Accusations of anti-Quebec sentiment” might be considered. That said, I'm left to wonder why Anti-Americanism, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-German, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Hungarian sentiment, and similarly tited articles exist, but "Anti-Quebec sentiment" seems out of the question. Victoriagirl 00:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points, which can be addressed without changing the title of the article. As a title, though, I think Anti-Quebec sentiment runs into problems with NOR again. If we are going to insist on a literal interpretation of WP:NOR, as some here do, we'll need sources affirming that any statement is anti-Quebec sentiment. On the other hand, WP:Verifiability's laughable standards qualify Le Journal de Montréal as a reliable source, so maybe that wouldn't be difficult. You'd still have the neutrality notice on the article, though. John FitzGerald 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

John, you've swung too far towards the other spectrum on NOR. In the case of the Westmount section, Landry calling Trent's comments "Quebec bashing" and then having that quoted in the Daily Mirror and CBC is enough to include it in this article as long as it is clear that it is Landry that is calling the comments Quebec bashing. It wouldn't be appropriate to have the article say "In 2001, Mayor Trent of Westmount made statements that were Quebec-bashing when he said...", but it is appropriate to properly attribute to Landry as it being his opinion that the comments were Quebec bashing. --Bobblehead 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But the article is no longer called "Quebec-bashing." It's called "Controversy over criticism of Quebec society." In an article called "Controversy over criticism of Bernard Landry" you wouldn't adduce examples of controversy over criticism of Jacques Parizeau. Similarly, in an article about controversy over criticism of Quebec society you do not adduce examples of controversy over actions which are not criticism of Quebec society. I can see why some people might interpret Westmount's actions as criticism of Quebec society, and also why others might not, so a source is needed which asserts that the actions are critical of Quebec society. You cannot use Landry as a reliable source for the accuracy of his own assertion. Furthermore, an accusation of Quebec-bashing is not necessarily an accusation of unfair criticism of Quebec society. Often, as i think it is here, it's simply an observation that there go the English being arseholes again (if it is, i think Mr. landry may well be right). John FitzGerald 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a real investigation as to why Quebec should be treated any differently than the those associated with the examples cited above. Surely all don't run counter to the NOR policy. Unfortunately, my visits here over the next few weeks will be fleeting, at best. I'll be looking into this issue when I have the opportunity.Victoriagirl 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The mayor of Westmount suggested that the new policy of municipal merger intended to deprive historical English towns of the West Island of their bilingual institutions, echoing similar rubbish published in the media. In reaction to this, Bernard Landry stated that the mayor was falling into Quebec bashing. All of it is based on misreporting, confusion and hearsay. The Quebec bashing content is what the mayor echoed. He is not the source. I guess the source is what we would have to search for to write anything of substance on this aspect of the municipal merger controversy.

An article about the Perceived bias in the representation of Quebec society in English language media would naturally include both the way in which it is accomplished (misreporting, ignoring certain opinions, amplifying others, letting hate speech slip in etc. as well as the actual "content" making up the representation (which would include, although not exclusively, the anti-Quebec discourse in its various forms). Here is an example of misrepresentation that doesn't have anything to do with Quebec bashing, but a lot to do with a subject of crucial importance which was misreported in English, the 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec:

"A little after the broadcast of the Supreme Court's opinion, I wrote an article in English to blame the covering of the event by English language media and I submitted it to the Globe and Mail and The Gazette: neither one has accepted to publish it. Even though there is no reason to see discrimination in these refusals, reading the article by Denis Monière (Le Devoir, September 2) and especially the subtitle "the anglophone public receives information which tends to reduce the visibility of the sovereignist forces whereas the French-speaking public receives information better shared between the federalist and sovereignist speakers", it appeared to me that both the content of my text and the refusal by the newspaper supported the remarks made by professeur Monière. -- Stephen Clarkson (Les médias anglophones et l'avis de la cour, Le Devoir, September 5-6 1998)

That is just one example of something that would fit in an article named according to my last suggestion. It would allow to cover the topic in a more meaningful and encyclopedic way I believe and it would attenuate the controversy (over the Quebec bashing article) by placing the "Quebec bashing" part in its rightful context. -- Mathieugp 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: If people find it useful, I can provide a translation of the article written by Stephen Clarkson, which presents a point of view some written media do not want English-speaking Canadians to read, especially from a credible academic source. -- Mathieugp 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You write "I guess the source is what we would have to search for to write anything of substance on this aspect of the municipal merger controversy." That is the problem. My quest at the NOR page for clarification of when a source is necessary hasn't borne much fruit. I think, though, the article you propose about bias would constitute original research unless it were restricted to reporting the results of scholarly studies. I suspect Monière may be right about the English and Quebec press on the whole, but that the problem is not anti-Quebec bias so much as incompetence and laziness. The most important aspect of their incompetence is journalists' inability to speak French. But they're pretty incompetent about everything – witness the National Post's recent front page headline story about how Jews in Iran were going to be made to wear Stars of David. John FitzGerald 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at Clarkson's piece. He's cherry-picking. The views he heard on Radio-Canada were also heard in the English media. His not hearing them on CBC-TV doesn't imply that they weren't heard anywhere else in the English media. I'll go look for Monière's article, though. Incidentally, in 1970 I was at a teach-in (remember them?) against the imposition of the War Measures Act at which Clarkson spoke. His contribution was to classify Quebec nationalism in a 2 X 2 table classifying nationalist movements. People were enormously pissed off, but I don;t know whether it was more at the irrelevance of his talk or at its fatuousness. John FitzGerald 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a request for advice at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Controversy_over_criticism_of_Quebec_society and said there I would encourage everyone involved in this discussion to add their view of the issue. So could you have a look at the post and add whatever you think appropriate? Thanks. John FitzGerald 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

This is a collection of trivial insults made by msotly trivial people, lovingly catalogued. It is just not worth an article of its own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.57.16.23 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

No one is trivial, except maybe anonymous posters. The issue isn't trivial, either, but I agree that the current article isn't particularly illuminating. People seem to have lost their taste for improving it, too, so it may be fated to remain unilluminating.

My and Peregrine's comments on the OR talk page have attracted no comments from people unassociated with the article, so it seems Wikipedia is generally uninterested in improving the article, too.

An attempt has already been made to delete the article. I don;t see much point in nominating it again. This is an important topic, and just listing the accusations of Quebec-bashing is informative. John FitzGerald 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with this anonymous user, this article is garbage as it is. Either an extensive rewrite is in order or it should really be deleted (scrapped and rewritten from scratch? and hopefully way more succinctly). The subject is important, but a collection of heavily biased descriptions of anecdotes doesn't qualify as an article.--Boffob 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As you may have inferred from my comments above, I'd prefer an extensive rewrite or cleanup, but that doesn't seem likely. We can't even agree on whether or not Bernard Landry should serve as a source for the validity of his own accusations (I say not). If you want to try to improve it, good luck. Of course, people seem to have lost interest in the article, so maybe now's the time. John FitzGerald 17:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in French Wikipedia is about quebec bashing - the use of the term and what it means, although it omits any discussion of which sectors in society use the term and why they use it. It lacks the lengthy list of examples. The problem with the english article is the lengthy list of examples - it is not clear whether many of them have ever been labelled Quebec bashing in the media. Without that, it just seems like a list of nasty things people have said, sometimes about Quebec, sometimes about Quebec political figures, and includes examples such as the City of Westmount, which does not list any denigration of Quebec at all. Suddenly the article is no longer explaining the use of a phrase, and is becoming an article about whether or not English Canada and non-francophone Quebecois hate Quebec and Quebec nationalists, and whether someone like Esther Delisle is a self-hating francophone. Its useful to explain the phrase; the rest is all heat and no insight. The examples suggest that criticism of Quebec nationalists such as Levesque or Bouchard is Quebec-bashing; I see no list of hatred directed at francophone federalists, or non-francophone Quebecois.

I'm afraid I find the entire article to be more of a modern sovereignist-POV essay rather than an objective, concisely written explanation of "Quebec bashing". Personally, in it's currently state I feel it should be on the chopping block. A rewrite might reflect the injustice, prejudice and oppression of language and culture faced by the Quebecois by the federal government and all French-Canadians throughout history, but when a prime example of "Quebec bashing" are the remarks of someone like Don Cherry, this article is flimsy, to say the least.

This article is in "Category:Discrimination", so it should reflect that. Don Cherry being a blowhard isn't discrimination, but there has been discrimination of Quebecers and (let's not forget) all French-Canadians (they exist outside Quebec too) in the past.

Since it's evident there has been some discussion of a rewrite for sometime and it hasn't happened, I think it should be deleted, unless someone has the motivation to do a complete rewrite and shift this article's focus. Otherwise I see this article in it's current state as irrelevant. Willmolls 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope to have the time soon to do some work along the line I have outlined below, which is similar to what you propose. Feel free to join in. The subject the Canadians among us here (that is, the ones who actually work on the article) should be thinking about, though, is Maryse Potvin's remark I quote below. John FitzGerald 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Current title is ridiculous and offensive

I strongly suggest a move to Anti-Quebec sentiments in line with other such articles. The current title is a flagrant whitewash and it makes one ill to the stomach to see some people defend such rubbish. The French article is also titled Quebec bashing, which certainly gets enough hits as well. The article must be moved to either one of these two. We are talking about bigotry here, not "criticism." I mean, wake up! Laval 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Quebec sentiment is clearly OR. For example, where is the evidence that the City of Westmount's opposition (along with other municipalities) to a project of the provincial government was motivated by hatred of an entire province (of which Westmount is, moreover, a part)? Anti-Quebec sentiment does not seem to me to have any empirical meaning. John FitzGerald 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy over criticism of Quebec society → Anti-Quebec sentiment — Current title is obvious and flagrant justification of bigotry. It is a whitewash. The article should be renamed "Anti-Quebec sentiment" since that is exactly what it is about. The article is not about "criticism," it is about bigotry. The article on the French Wikipedia is titled "Quebec bashing" (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_bashing). Either way the article must be moved to a new name. I cannot stress the level of offense that the current title causes. —Laval 08:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC) copied from WP:RM Bobblehead 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, show us where the bigotry is, and maybe you'll persuade us. Until you do that, though, your claim is just personal abuse. I cannot stress too much the offence and the harm that unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry cause. John FitzGerald 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly suggest you review comments here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quebec_bashing to understand where I am coming from. Again, and I hate repeating myself constantly as this is redundant, this article is not about "criticism" - it is about bigotry and prejudice towards the francophone society of Quebec. The article is also not about "criticism" of Quebec nationalism - that is patently ridiculous as I have already explained to you. The phenomenon of "Quebec bashing" (as explained numerous times) is about bigotry towards Quebec francophones. What is so difficult to understand about that??? Laval 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read those reasons already and just reviewed them. They still don't explain how the current title or the article promotes bigotry – they're chiefly unsubstantiated reiterations that it exists. If the bigotry in the article is so blatant it shouldn't be too hard to come up with one example of it, should it? You know, you're obviously an intelligent guy, and perhaps I'm not. Explain things to me. As for what you've explained to me already, here and elsewhere, you've explained pretty well everything but what I'm asking you to explain. Asserting without evidence that something is bigoted is not an explanation. John FitzGerald

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. John Fitzgerald's comment is clearly out of line as my words are directed towards those who would label bigotry as "criticism" thus legitimizing it. That is definitely offensive! At any rate, the title Anti-Quebec bashing is not "original research" as Google clearly shows it is in use, and Quebec bashing, of course, was the original title of this article, and Google shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that its use is proper and legitimate as well. I support a move to either Anti-Quebec sentiment or Quebec bashing. Either way, an article on Anti-Quebec sentiment (calling this term "OR" is absurd to the extreme - see Category:Anti-national sentiment for examples of its use) deserves an article here. But ultimately, nothing in this article is about legitimate "criticism" of Quebec or Quebec society. It is about bigotry - Quebec bashing - pure and simple. I feel sorry for anyone who attempts to legitimize such obvious prejudice. Laval 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Review the policy on original research – the proposed title draws a conclusion which is not sourced in the article; ergo, it's OR, et quoque ergo I ain't out of any line. As you would see if you read what i have written above, I liked the original title, which clearly is not OR for the reasons you give. No need to feel sorry for me, either. John FitzGerald 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument that the title is original research doesn't hold much merit considering that the current title is far more original research than "Anti-Quebec sentiments." Do a Google search for "Anti-Quebec sentiments" - you will see that your argument fails. If we cannot agree on this title, then I suggest we move back to the original "Quebec bashing," because as I've said, the current title is not only ridiculous, but clearly and obviously original research. "Anti-Quebec sentiments," however, is not original at all, considering its use in academia and media. See for instance [7] and [8] and [9]. [10], [11]. Those are from the top Google hits. Laval 09:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the term is used does not constitute evidence that it exists. I can use Google to find "French-Canadian antisemitism," but that doesn't justify having an article with that title (especially since publshed research supports the idea that French Canada is less antisemitic than English Canada). Anyway, your google search is in itself OR. Read the policy. You might be able to persuade me if you'd just explain how the opposition of Westmount City Council (coposed of Quebecers) to a proposal of the provincial government (also opposed by francophone municipalities) was motivated by anti-Quebec sentiment. Yes, it probably doesn't fit under the current title, either, but I've already raised that issue above. John FitzGerald 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. I have stated above my reasons for believing the proposed title is inappropriate, and in fact this title has already been considered and rejected as the earlier discussion of renaming shows. Furthermore, the reason given for moving is in itself offensive. The title is objective, and the objection to it seems to be only that it doesn't adequately conform to Laval's own beliefs about what is motivating the contributors to this article. In the absence of any evidence that we're bigots, I suggest the correct move is for Laval either to demonstrate we're bigots or to apologize for slandering us. John FitzGerald 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

Add any additional comments:

• Comment while I am partial to the title "Anti-Quebec sentiments", I have to say I am put off by the RM nominators comments and the strong POV motivation to this move. I'm not a fan of this current title because I simply don't think it covers the scope of the subject matter. If you interpret an "Anti-Quebec comment" as the criticism of Quebec society then a slightly literal interpretation of the title is that it is only about the "Reaction" to those comments rather then being an article about the existence or "phenomenon" itself. However, the article attempts to delve more into the "context" of Anti-Quebec Sentiments with the best WP:NPOV goal of trying not to be hostile nor sympathetic to it subject. (How well it acheives that goal is another issue). Simply put, I think this article is more about the phenomenon of Anti-Quebec sentiments rather then a catalog of criticisms and the reactions to them.205.157.110.11 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How about just calling it Criticism of Quebec society and dropping the "Controversy over"? And yes, the nominator here is digging his own grave with his incredibly abrasive tone. --tjstrf talk 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That title is just as absurd and original research as I've already explained. I'm sorry that you consider my tone "abrasive" but one tends to become angry when confronted with bigotry. I do not apologize for attempting to stand up against such prejudice. I have noticed similar accusations of "abrasiveness" leveled at Jews, African-Americans, and recently Iranians for their responses to intolerance and historical revisionism. Only someone who has ever been the victim of bigotry could understand. If you have never been such a victim, then you should be grateful. But do not ever, ever tell me that I am digging my own grave or that I am abrasive for wanting to stand against prejudice and revisionism. Laval 09:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Laval, hi. I don't think it's so much about standing against prejudice. I, for one, am with you 100% on that point. It's just true that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and the name of the game at Wikipedia is diplomacy. I know that can be frustrating, but it's the reality here. Don't worry; I think we'll be able to figure out a better solution than the current title.

      The current title of the article is problematic, and it's not an open-and-shut issue, as far as I can see. I close a lot of move requests, and this one seems complicated. I've bumped it to the top of the queue at WP:RM, and I think an RfC is probably in order.

      There seem to be two different issues at work here, but then it's complicated, because they overlap to an extent. On the one hand, there's racism against French-Canadians. That's a real thing, and it is sometimes called "Quebec-bashing". On the other hand, sometimes people make legitimate (or at least non-racist) criticisms of some aspects of Quebec government and/or society, and that sometimes gets called "Quebec bashing", too. It's certainly offensive to suggest that racial bigotry is legitimate criticism, and it's also unfair to suggest that all criticism must be driven by racism.

      We do have plenty of articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment, and a number of them are titled "Anti-XXXX sentiment". Some call it "racism"; some call it "hatred". None uses the word "criticism" except for this one. We've also got plenty of articles about criticisms of various institutions. Does that mean we need two articles? Who gets to decide which examples are racism and which are legitimate criticism? I'm not sure what the solution is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GTB. I should clarify that I, too, believe there is anti-Quebec sentiment; it's just that I don't think every instance noted in the article is motivated by anti-Quebec sentiment. As for other articles not using the word 'criticism', I don't see that as an example to emulate here. One important aspect of the controversy is precisely that accusations of Quebec-bashing have been used against both real examples and against examples of legitimate criticism. John FitzGerald 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've been a victim of bigotry, every time I've read Le Journal de Montréal. Your anger would be more persuasive if you would respond to repeated requests and specify one bigoted statement in this article. Anyway, if anything in the article is bigoted, you have the option of taking it out. John FitzGerald 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  John, hi. As I understand the criticism of the title, it's not that the article contains bigoted statements, it's that it implies in the title that all "Quebec bashing" consists of legitimate criticism that's taken as "bashing" by overly sensitive Quebecois. It certainly would be inappropriate to suggest that responding to racism is the same thing as responding to "criticism", don't you think? See also my comments above, that I think there are two distinct issues at work here. Do you think I'm seeing the situation accurately? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that implication is in the title, nor do I think that's the objection. I believe that both Quebec-bashing and valid criticism of Quebec exist; and that both are criticism. To me, Jan Wong quacks like a Quebec basher, but she constructs arguments which can be criticized in return. Laval said "Current title is obvious and flagrant justification of bigotry." Saying there is controversy over criticism of Quebec society is scarcely advocacy of bigotry. It also doesn't stop anyone from writing about anti-Quebec sentiment in the article. John FitzGerald 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, if the argument is that the article promotes bigotry, some evidence that it does that should be provided. The unattested opinion of one person – which appears to be all that Laval is willing to provide us – is not sufficient to justify a move on these grounds. John FitzGerald 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Funny to see canadians tying to occult a reality of their society. You gotta show a lot of bad faith by classifying the branding political leaders as devils or claiming that a population are simpleton controled by separatist media a simple 'criticism of the Quebec society'. The phenomena exist so Anti-Quebec sentiment would be a valid title. The REAL debate should be around what's included in it. Pointing the flaws of Quebec's economic model in harsh (or even condescending terms) probably isn't while brending Quebec society as a whole as xenophobic clearly is.-Marc Gévry 1:25, 30 March

Alternative titles

I think we can all move on from the nominator's opening and look for some consensus and compromise for a title. I think a fair number of editors would agree that the current title is not sufficient and I would say that "Quebec bashing" wouldn't have much support either. But let's take a look at the other two proposals and have some discussions on them. 205.157.110.11 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Quebec sentiments

• I would support this as I feel that it is WP:NPOV in that it is neither hostile nor sympathetic towards the subject. 205.157.110.11 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would support this title. I agree that it's a neutral term, and the fact that it's actually used in the world of reliable sources is an advantage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Quebec society

• The more I think about it, the more I think that this one maybe a better choice-especially along the NPOV front. The term "Criticism", by itself, is not POV loaded and can convey justifiable criticsm and also negative-racist oriented statements. Whether or not a criticms is justified or outrageous is up for the reader to decided after reading the facts. 205.157.110.11 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't support this title. It feels to me like a stretch to characterize racist stereotypes as "criticism" - that's just too far from what I think that word generally conveys. When I think of a situation with which I'm more familiar - racism against blacks in the U.S. - I just can't see someone describing a black person as "reacting to criticism" when they object to racist jokes, bigotry, or hate-crimes. When James Byrd, Jr. was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck for being black (in 1998), that wasn't a "criticism of black society". Therefore, I'm not comfortable labelling racism against any ethnicity as "criticism". It's too much of a whitewash.

  I would support including actual criticism in an article about Quebec culture (or wherever it's appropriate), and specific notbale issues could be treated in separate articles, but if an article's going to be about racism, I don't think we should call it criticism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Controversy over criticism of Quebec society to Anti-Quebec sentiment as the result of a move request. Ascertaining consensus about the article was made more difficult by personal attacks on both sides, which disappoints me, but the most widely-accepted title, and the one against which fewest legitimate criticisms have been made, is "Anti-Quebec sentiment". --Stemonitis 07:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Questioning move

Could you provide the count you used to decide that "Anti-Quebec sentiment" was the most widely accepted title? Opinion seemed evenly divided to me. The current title also seems like anti-English-Canadian propaganda. Its proponents wouldn't even attempt to demonstrate that any of the incidents or opinions etc. described in the article were motivated by anti-Quebec sentiment, even though Laval claimed anti-Quebec sentiment was exactly what the article was about. However, the article now has a title which implies that any criticism of the Quebec government is motivated by hatred of the Québécois people. John FitzGerald 12:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh... so the old title didn't imply that racism was legitimate criticism, but the current title implies that legitimate criticism is racism? That seems odd, doesn't it? I agree that it's not cool to label valid criticism as "racism", or vice versa. Why should the two be mingled in one article, anyway? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

John, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so a move request is less about the number of people voting in favor of one option, but rather the arguments presented in favor of the options. The closing admin seems to have explained why "Anti-Quebec sentiment" was chosen over "Criticism of Quebec society" based on the arguments presented in favor of both. But then, I didn't vote on the move request, so take it or leave it. --Bobblehead 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The explanation for the move was that the new title was the most widely accepted. Read the explanation again, count the people supporting each option, and then give me a condescending explanation. And yeah – Wikipedia sure ain't a democracy. It may surprise you to learn that many people consider that a bad thing. John FitzGerald 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As for GTBacchus's question, no, calling something controversial clearly does not imply that it is non-racist. Wasn't Hitler just a tad controversial? Calling something anti-Quebec sentiment, though, implies it's motivated by sentiment rather than by reason. The difference between the implications of the two titles seems clear to me. John FitzGerald 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

People who think Wikipedia should be a democracy don't understand what an encyclopedia is. Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? Why should encyclopedia content be decided as a popularity contest? If more people pile on and agree on an Internet page that something is true, does that make it true? If you want a democratically written encyclopedia, you're welcome to start one, but here we'll stick with neutrality, which is not achieved by voting.

As for your response to my comment above, I don't see how it's a response. I'm not taking about calling something "controversial". I'm saying that labelling racism as "criticism" is wrong, just like it's wrong to label criticism as "racism". There's nothing there about controversy.

If there are valid, non-racism-based criticisms in an article about anti-racial sentiment, those should be moved to a different article, about criticisms. Similarly, if there's information about racist sentiment in an article about criticisms, then it should be moved to an article about racial sentiment.

Am I making sense here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The issue is that the decision was ostensibly made for a reason which is clearly invalid. Why should encyclopedic content be determined by a single appointed individual who doesn't pay attention to what people have said about it and then bases his decision on an invalid conclusion?
2. Your assertion that racism can't be taken as criticism is clearly wrong. Did Strom Thurmond not criticize the Democratic party for racist reasons when he set up his own party in 1948? Racism is often expressed as a system of thought and criticisms deduced from it. The supposed scientific evidence of the intellectual inferiority of different races is a classic example (the very idea that it's possible to establish such differences is inherently racist, but whole programs of public policy have been deduced from it). Anyway, consult a dictionary. The terms are not exclusive. John FitzGerald 13:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And the current title is racist. It implies, for example, that an English municipality in Quebec which disagrees with the provincial government must be disagreeing for racist reasons. John FitzGerald 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How does it imply that? If there's an article about racism, how does that imply that all criticism is racism? I don't see that at all. Are you saying we can't have an article about racism against Quebec, because that would somehow imply that all criticism is racist?

Are we somehow talking past each other? I get the impression you're missing my point, and apparently I'm missing yours. Is there somebody here who understands both of us, who can translate? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a request for a third opinion; maybe some input from others will help clarify what's going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not asking that the title be changed, so a third opinion is unnecessary.
2. Read the article. Included in it is an account of the opposition of Westmount City Council to a policy of the provincial government. Other municipalities in Quebec opposed the policy. Westmount is part of Quebec, as is its municipal government. Reasons were offered for this opposition. Yet there it is classified as an example of anti-Quebec sentiment. Perhaps it is, but the article offers no evidence that it is.
3. Stemonitis has clarified the decision for me (discussion on his talk page), and as far as I'm concerned revealed that he might as well have flipped a coin. Anyway, Mathieugp and Laval have some good ideas about how to improve this article, and I hope to be able to help with their initiative. John FitzGerald 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that the Westmount opposition was out of animosity to Quebec, then it should be removed. There is no need for a long, drawn out discussion about this single part of the article, unless there is more the story than meets the eye. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and I really don't know much about it, so I can't offer any significant comment at this point. The section probably has a better place in the Westmount article itself. Laval 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the section probably just needs some clarification, which we can discuss later – long weekend coming up. As for the rest of the comments here, I asked for an explanation of the decision, i got it, and I'm not going to contest the change. I'm quite happy with the direction the article is taking. I appreciate Bobblehead's and GTBacchus's concern for my knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but their comments really were works of supererogation. John FitzGerald 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Mordecai Richler? Can he really be characterized as "anti Quebec"? He criticized government policies, and what he perceived as racisim within the society... but is this really "anti Quebec sentiment"? Is Lucien Bouchard anti-Quebec for criticizing Quebecers' reliance on unions and the welfare state? Both were controversial and criticisms of "Quebec society"? This article is still plagued by problems of definition which arise from such a loose definition. I begin to question our ability to make this encyclopedic. Also, I don't accept that criticism, even virulent, personal, slanderous, or mean, of politicians consists of "anti-Quebec sentiment." Anti-Quebec sentiment has to be blatantly racist or categorical attacks against all Quebecers, or the very institution itself, ie. calling for the destruction of the province. Peregrine981 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a proposal below which I hope may help us deal with this question. It develops mathieugp's idea of providing a scholarly basis for the article. John FitzGerald 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New contents for new article

Now that the article subject has changed, we will have to classify the various expressions of anti-Quebec sentiments. Most of what is presently in the article has more to do with the dirty political war against the legitimacy of Quebec's independence movement than anything else. Other than ...

• Maryse Potvin, "Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998", in Canadian Ethnic Studies, volume XXXII, issue 2, 2000, pages 1-26.
• P. Frisko et J.S. Gagné, "La haine. Le Québec vu par le Canada anglais", in Voir, 18-24 juin, 1998 (Hatred. Quebec Seen by English Canada)

What books are out there on the subject? We should all start searching for scholarly works on anti-Quebec sentiments. I doubt the subject was ever covered explicitely in these words either Quebec or the ROC. We are all to prone to use euphemisms to avoid uproars from people we wish to keep out of the arena for everyone's safety. -- Mathieugp 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. I already said I'd check out Potvin but haven't. I'll check it as soon as I can. Another, and to my mind more serious, problem, is that Quebec is not seen at all in the English press. So I may look for some research on that topic.

THe article needs to go beyond racism and hate, though. A stunning example of what would appear to be anti-Quebec prejudice was the English press commentary about the federal budget, which treated it as a giant sop to Quebec. I think that's more the result of cluelessness than hate. The Winnipeg Sun finally managed last week to publish a piece about how Quebec's transfers per capita are about average. John FitzGerald 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is unlikely that an article equivalent to the French Wikipedia article on Quebec bashing will ever be allowed here (considering the strength of opposition displayed through the history of this discussion), thus my suggestion is to continue addressing "Quebec bashing" within this article, as it forms a major component of anti-national sentiment. Laval 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The new title gives us the opportunity to expand the article into a historical survey of the role of anti-Quebec sentiment in Canada. Obviously, anti-Quebec sentiment has played an important, and probably structural, role in the Canadian federation. By expanding the article to include events such as the Orange Order's transformation in 1870 of treaty negotiations into a rebellion, the passing of Regulation 17, etc. I am sure there is plenty of scholarly work on these topics. By situating current events within a history of the role of anti-Quebec sentiment we could probably resolve a lot of the disputes about whether specific current publications constitute expressions of anti-Quebec sentiment. The dimensions of anti-Quebec sentiment considered beyond "the legitimacy of Quebec's independence movement." Obviously, in the beginning it was largely anti-Catholic, and I suspect that now that religion is less important in Canadian life the leftover anti-Quebec hatred has acquired functional autonomy.

Anyway, as i said, there is certain to be a great deal of scholarly work on this topic (by Canadian standards, anyway – that is, those of a country which has produced only one biography of as pivotal a figure as Oliver Mowat.

I'll postpone any comments about how to deal with the Westmount issue until people have responded (or not) to this proposal. John FitzGerald 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a good starting point, and may well require the removal of much of the present article. Peregrine981 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the current, essentially irresolvable disputes over whether specific journalists are/are not anti-Quebec (irresolvable simply because the evidence necessary to resolve them isn't available) could be replaced by a discussion of important manifestations of anti-Quebec sentiment generally accepted by scholars. I should clarify that this is not a ruse to ignore the references Mathieugp has provided. I will be looking into them as soon as I get a chance to visit the reference library. John FitzGerald 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy for a few weeks, as it seems everyone has been. however, i'm actually going to go look for Potvin and for Frisko & Gagné today. What I think we need is an article called Anti-French sentiment in Canada. I don't think there's any dispute about the reality of that or about its importance in Canadian history. It would include topics like the ones I mentioned above, plus more general ones such as the Manitoba Schools Question. This article could be subsidiary to it. John FitzGerald 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Potvin article can be obtained through Access My Library and very interesting it is, too. It is a qualitative work, and like Esther Delisle's qualitative work makes some quantitative assertions that it really supplies no evidence for (for example, about the prevalence of Quebec-bashing). However, it documents several clear examples of the phenomenon and i'm sure can furnish material for this article. i haven't verified that you won't ultimately get billed for this article. if you have any difficulties getting it, let me know. John FitzGerald 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Potvin's conclusion: "It is necessary not only to begin a real critique of institutions, but also to evacuate the obsession with national identity which, on the one side, is articulated around the reinforcement of the federal state, the Charter, and a mythified version of the Canadian multicultural project, and which, on the other side, is based on a logic of ideological victimization and crystallization of the political project." John FitzGerald 15:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Potvin

I added a couple of sentences about Potvin's conclusion. When i have the time later today I will add a section about the appointment of David Levine, which she writes about in detail. John FitzGerald 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added a new reference for her English article because the CJES article has a notice saying it is slightly different from the French version. John FitzGerald 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Potvin's status as a reference

I have added a section about the appointment of David Levine, taken from Potvin. However, I noticed that her article is used as a reference here for assertionas about the frequency of Quebec-bashing, even though the article provides no empirical evidence of frequency. As I have noted, Potvin's is qualitative analysis rather than quantitative. If she is to continue to be used as a reference for these assertions, I think the meaning of frequent should be clarified. Certainly she provides evidence that several examples of Quebec-bashing can be found in Canadian public discourse, which satisfies one meaning of frequent, but she provides no evidence that it constitutes anthiing but a tiny percentage of the public discourse about Quebec, which she would need to provide to satisfy another definition. John FitzGerald 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for citation in the Levine section.

Potvin is the reference for the whole section. I'll check with V'girl before removing it, however. John FitzGerald 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to John for pointing this out. I've responded on his talk page, and feel I should repeat my comments here.

It had occured to me that the Potvin citation might have referred to the entire section. I'm not so sure that this is particularly clear. After all, the citation is placed after seven sentences (the most contentious of which is number four). I think the answer might be to cite the article twice (or more) within the section, but I'm unable to do this myself as I've ever read the piece.

This does raise a question concerning citations in general. Wiki being fluid, it is possible to - intentionally or not - insert a questionable statement into a series of statements meant to be covered by a specific citation. What's more, when a citation appears at the end of an article, I'm left to wonder exactly what it is that the citation covers... the final sentence? the entire section? Assuming the statement in question ("The newspaper also repeatedly compared sovereignists to Nazis.") is supported by the Potvin article, I suggest that the citation be applied to the end of that particular sentence. Victoriagirl 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

What is the point of the photo of St. James St.? It doesn't seem to elucidate anything. The cutline needs a citation, too. John FitzGerald 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with John. I don't think the photo adds anything to the article. Although I recall making a minor contribution to the cutline at some point, I fail to see the connection with "Anti-Quebec sentiment". English-language signs are no more Anti-Quebec, than uniligual Chinese signs in Vancouver are evidence of anti-Canadianism. Furthermore, to these eyes, only portions of two signs are legible. Is there any French? From what I know of Montreal history, it seems doubtful - but I can't make it out one way or another. Victoriagirl 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does sovereignism = Quebec?

Many of the examples cited here implicitly identify Quebec with sovereignism, separatism, or Quebec nationalism. I contributed to this by adding the section about David Levine. Anyway, it later occurred to me that an attack on Levine for being a Quebec nationalist does not logically constitute anti-Quebec sentiment.

I'd prefer the bit about Levine stay in (since it is part of an important phenomenon), but we had a vote a while ago about the title, and Anti-Quebec sentiment won (according to the person whose opinion counted, anyway). If we are going to persevere with that title then the content should be appropriate to the title. If we are not going to re-name the article yet again, I propose taking out all the examples which do not consist of criticism of Quebec society or culture as a whole, but rather of one political group. John FitzGerald 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the idea that criticism of "separatist figures" constitutes criticism of Quebec has been slipped into the first sentence, but I don't see how it can be justified. John FitzGerald 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous edit to the first post under this section was by me. My browser had retained a logged-in page, and i forgot I had to log in again. I was editing it because I saw the Westmount example had been removed ̵; I had mentioned it in the first post without checking to see if it was still there. Good thing it's gone, too – we would have had to add Gérald Tremblay's irate accusations today that Charest is sucking up to the English^[12]. John FitzGerald 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to give too much of a damn about this issue, and separatist figures are included in the first para, so I decided not to remove Levine. Still seems daft to me. In the first para, though, I think I'll change especially to as well as or something like that. Separatist figures no more represent the majority of Quebecers than any other political party or group does. John FitzGerald 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The word was particularly, not especially. I took it out but I'm going to put it back, since it finally occurred to me that separatists are part of Quebec culture.

However, what bothers me now is that "French Canadian." Seems a bit tendentious to me. I'll leave it up to members of the French Canadian majority to decide if it's OK. John FitzGerald 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Des bouts de chiffon rouge

No offence intended to Bearcat, whose work I very much admire, but I'm not clear as to why the Des bouts de chiffon rouge section is included in this article. Unless I'm missing something, as written there is nothing in the affair that reflects "opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of Quebec, that is French-Canadians, English Quebecers and people from other origins" (the current definition of "Anti-Quebec sentiment" provided in this article). Victoriagirl 16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the underlying idea is that of the anglo press conspiracy against Quebec. I may be wrong about Bearcat's intentions (having worked on articles with him before, I'm sure I may well be), but it seems to me the incident only makes sense as part of this article as an expression of the idea that the English conspire against the French. I suspect Landry was just, as usual, not being calculating and just reacting quickly, and that he didn't mean to be insulting. Il balançait le chiffon rouge, in fact. Nevertheless, eh? By the way, the part I found offensive was the use of bout. John FitzGerald 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is a piece of crap

I doubt there is a worse piece of political ax-grinding on Wikipedia. This article is laced with selective facts, third-rate analysis and political ranting. It is unfixable and should be tossed.Lafarge Dodger 19:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you add your own selective "facts" to the article?--Boffob 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to very partially fill in a 100-year gap that was glossed over. The article is trash, and it should go.Lafarge Dodger 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of Mr. Dodger, if not the actual way he represented his viewpoint. The examples in the article seem to be inappropriately detailed, to the point where marginal writers from unimportant newspaper (like the Mirror) is represented as somehow being relevant. Although I read the Mirror in CEGEP, it isn't particularly popular and I rarely hear of it in any meaningful conversation. Furthermore, the way the article is written is more akin to a McCarthy-esque list of "suspected communists" (with communists replaced by supposed "Quebec Bashers"). It is not in the style of an encyclopedia article and offers very minimal context to someone unfamiliar with the internals of Quebec. Furthermore, some of the claims made in the article are treated as ethnic attacks on the Quebecois people rather than attacks on the government or the fading economical situation of the province.

Quebec has its bashers, but presenting them in this manner makes them appear to be far more threatening than they actually are. It also behooves us to provide a more well-rounded article that traces the origins of anti-Quebec sentiment rather than simply providing a list of names and their comments about Quebec. Can you imagine an article about Anti-semitism that is a list of people and their comments about Jews? [Jawaad Mahmood] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.54.20 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be AFDed. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really late on the debate

This article starts with 'Quebec Bashing' as title. The new title/subject is already a different topic. The expression 'Quebec Bashing' is way more restrictive than 'anti-Quebec sentiment' or 'anti-french sentiment'

• The quote: "Yesterday I heard someone bashing against Quebec but it was not 'Quebec Bashing'" is not self-contradictory.

The following :

• "I wish that all Quebec ppl die." are not 'Quebec Bashing'.

While, the "Montrealistan" quote at the top of this talk page is clearly demonstrating what it is called 'Quebec Bashing'.

I think that 'bashing' - the slang word use in Quebec - and the original 'bashing' from english differs. If you jump loudly on empty cardboard boxes you are 'bashing' them. There is a huge part of : easy, free, useless, sensationalist and (that's where the difficulties start) perceived as clearly false or base falsely on commonly known facts.

If someone wrote : "Canadians society came to worship that Terry Fox guy. Because of that conspiracy, they now believe, like he did, that walking will cure cancer. While, in fact, I discovered that he don't even have crossed the entire country. That's an inconvenient truth that we should tell them!" can be a proper rendering of the correct use of what is called 'Quebec Bashing' transposed to Canada.

@JFitz : You are totally right to mentioned that there's differences between Quebec and Separatist movement. And, Yes, the accusation of 'Quebec Bashing' happens to be sometimes free and misused against proper 'critics of Quebec society'. But there is the limitation (and... yes it's tricky to explain) :

Imagine someone writing : "[...]Canadians elected Stephen Harper, a pro-gay lobbyist who fight like no-one for a vote about same-sex union. Mr Harper also said (like many men in this country) that he loves Jesus, who is - obviously - a male. Everytime he's asked, Mr Harper clearly says that he is not homophobic. Following him, Canadians agree to pay millions (millions!) on a war against the homophobic Talibans. And they also gave him a good score! It's speak by itself about canadian culture![...]"

1) It's clearly crap, but complicated to sustain it properly. 2) It's not all canadians who are tories! 3) The text have finally no point outside of being sensationalist and somewhat homophobic. But because everything and everyone are so mixed up, even if it's toward Tories, (in the same time than pro-tories), it will ended up to be qualified - if you agree with my reverted world example - under the expression 'Canada Bashing'. ...

'Anti-Quebec sentiments'/'Anti-french sentiments'(...) are, for some POV, a possible explanation of a phenomenon named (by default) 'Quebec Bashing' that's where the ambiguity is.--207.134.17.167 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Strikes me as an "enemies list" of Quebec nationalists, nothing more. Lafarge Dodger 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to imagine stuff like that. If you were reading the Quebec papers back at the time of the Oka crisis, you'll recall reading that English journalists were supposedly in league with the Mohawks (subsequently investigated by the SdQ and found to be false). About the same time Quebec papers were reporting that Eric Lindros was a hero in English Canada for making Quebecers look bad (in fact he was largely regarded as a spoilt brat). It seems to me that many Quebecers are too worried about what English Canadians think of them and too little about exercising the freedom they have to be Quebecers. Here's an example. I recently saw The Rocket, the English version of Maurice Richard (the movie). Here's a man who was probably the greatest sporting champion Canada has ever seen, the finest hockey scorer, a man who as captain led the Canadiens to five straight Stanley Cups, and a man who after his career ended gave Canada an example of how to live one's life. So what does the movie concentrate on? How he was a victim of the English! The movie ends with him caving in to the English oppressors. You know, I don't think Maurice Richard ever caved in to anyone about anything. I look forward to a movie that realizes that, and to any movie that will focus on the many accomplishments of Quebecers rather than to what anglophones supposedly think of them. You know, even if anglophones are demonizing Quebecers, getting upset about it just lets them know they've got to you. Do what they do about criticisms of them: ignore them. Phrenesiac 18:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the statement that "many American states" have language protection laws. If you follow the citation, you'll see that some American states have declared English an official language for use in government. That's a much narrower scope than Bill 101, and is more the establishment of an official language, than a "language protection law." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.190.165 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan Wong Controversy ==> NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW/CITATIONS

There was a separate article on Wikipedia entitled, “Jan Wong Controversy”. Now, however, that article has been unilaterally deleted and replaced with a redirect to a section of the article herein, “Anti-Quebec Sentiment”.

It is possible that the separate Jan Wong article constituted a point of view fork, contrary to Wikipedia policy. In which case, its redirection to a section here could serve to bring the topic back into compliance with policy. However, the article’s deletion with neither mention nor discussion on the talk page associated with that article, begs the question: Was that action unacceptably unilateral?

Moreover, the small, two-paragraph section in the “Anti-Quebec Sentiment” article is worse that the article it replaces on two counts:

• While the section cites the Jan Wong article that gave rise to the controversy, all of the critique it presents is uncited
• It reads as much like an op/ed piece as the article it replaced and is not an improvement (e.g., the use of the word, “falsely”).

SpikeToronto (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion

If the Jan Wong section cannot be rewritten for a neutral point of view, I would like to suggest deleting that section entirely. Comments? SpikeToronto (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Deleted

Since there was no argument to the contrary, and because of the reasons discussed above, I have deleted the Jan Wong Controversy section from the Anti-Quebec sentiment article, as per WP:SILENCE. Just to recap, the reasons were primarily as follows:

• While the section cites the Jan Wong Globe & Mail article that gave rise to the controversy, all of the critique it presents is uncited;
• It reads as much like an op/ed piece as the separate wikiarticle it had earlier replaced and is not an improvement (e.g., the use of the word, “falsely”); and
• Op/ed pieces are inherently unencyclopedic.

— SpikeToronto (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have returned a modified discussion of the Jan Wong controversy to the article as it's clearly relevant. I am of course open to suggestions for elaboration/modification and recognize that there is more work to do (but I am out of time as my family is heading out the door to dinner) (darn real life) Corlyon (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

This article clearly is a battleground between Quebec seccessionists who believe the constitutional debate regarding Quebec in Canada is either the product of nefarious elements in "English" Canada out to denigrate Quebec; or a propaganda campaign by a nationalist Quebec press. It does not document studies of discrimination, but merely quotes polemic and editorial sources. Marginal sources are given too much weight in an article, and many provocative claims are not backed up with verifiable sources.Most sources are unrepresentative of mainstream positions, and moderate ones are largely critiques of marginal sources.

This article is inherently unencyclopedic and should be deleted.--soulscanner (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, so I can't say whether or not I agree with you -- regardless, however, two things: (1) It's not unencyclopedic just because you disagree with it, and (2) If you want to be taken seriously, be professional by backing up what you say with specifics -- quote specific text from the article, and provide links to reliable sources which refute it. Screed84 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The unverified claims are noted in the article. The fact that the examples given come from marginal editorial sources is also documented in the lead of the article. Essentially, presenting factoids from marginal sources to show that "Quebec-bashing" is a widespread phenomenon smacks of a conspiracy theory. Marginal figures spouting off in the media about political opponents does not constitute proof that there is widespread discriminating against Quebecers in the world. Moreover, the counter claims do not really challenge the main tenet of the article; they merely add information that is equally questionable. There is too much here to parse through to thoroughly document this. --soulscanner (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has been in need of a major cleanup, not to mention a renaming, for quite some time. The original subject was Quebec bashing a phenomenon most visible in the press, not all things Anti-Quebec, which an encyclopedia could never hope to cover in full. On the bashing of Quebecers for political reasons, here is what British philosopher John Stuart Mill observed when he decided to look closer into the affairs of the Canadas in 1838, just after the beginning of the civil war and before Lord Durham landed at Quebec:

In commenting on these unhappy transactions it is not our wish to enter into any retrospective crimination. A new state of things now exists in Canada, and the past has ceased to be of importance, save for the guidance of the future. But with a view to that future, and to the measures on which Lord Durham first, and afterwards the British Parliament, will have to deliberate, some reference to the past is indispensable. Let us first get rid of the language of mere abuse, which men so inflamed by passion as to be lost to all perception of the most recognised moral distinctions, have heaped upon the insurgents to render them odious. They are styled rebels and traitors. The words are totally inapplicable to them. [...]

Of the injuries inflicted by a foreign government, the people that suffers them, not the people that inflicts them, is the proper judge; and when such a people revolts, even improperly, against the foreign yoke, its conduct is not treason or rebellion, but war. From this view of the case, which, as we infer from his language, has commended itself to the vigorous and unsophisticated understanding of the Duke of Wellington, and which has been forcibly argued in one of the anti-Canadian pamphlets at the head of our article, what follows? That the Canadian contest not being rebellion, but war, the insurgents who fall into our hands are not criminals, who can be tried by a court of justice, but prisoners of war; [...]

The assertion is one of the misrepresentations, calumnies we may venture to call them, of which, from their distance and the popular ignorance on the subject, the Canadians are liable to far more than we can at present meet; and of many others of which, the refutation, from the Commissioners’ Reports, might be made fully as conclusive To this people, thus calumniated, it will now be for Lord Durham to do justice. [13]

170 years after, the historians of British North America (renamed "Canada" after the publishing of the above), save a few, still call the events of 1837 a "rebellion", and the people "thus calumniated" is still waiting for "Lord Durham to do justice". On the trash continually written about Quebecers the minute the subject is political, we can go back as far as the beginning of the partisan press with the founding of the Quebec Mercury. Back then, the worst calumny was to be a "traitor", to be "disloyal" to the Crown. There was no better way to get your political adversaries to be hanged than to have them perceived as traitors, especially in a country where the ascending party was proudly Loyalist. Social changes rendered those attacks less effective with the passing of time, so the individuals who defend the dignity of the Quebec people today are styled "bigoted", "anti-Semite", "xenophobic", "Nazis" etc. By extension, it splashes on the majority of those people who speak French or have a French patronym. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A claim of a conspiracy theory would mean something in the article that said that all of the Quebec bashers were in cahoots somehow. In my opinion, Soulscanner hasn't made a convincing case that this article might be alleging a conspiracy theory. Joeldl (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests that anti-Quebec bigotry is rampant in English-speaking Canada. All allegations of anti-Quebec bias are attributed to marginal English-speaking Canadians. The article even suggests that criticism of Quebec outside Canada is attributable to English Canadians. It is inherently incendiary and nothing but a screed against English Canadians. You need only look at the list of references; they are all by rather extreme nationalists. It's just a documentation of marginal nationalist extremists in Quebec hurling insults back at loud mouthed editorialists in English Canada. The article serves as a megaphone for all these views. It is the equivalent of an article "Anglophobia in Quebec" that lists every stupid thing that francophones have said about English speakers in Quebec and listing figures such as Norman Lester, Guy Bouthillier, Paul Vallieres and Raymond Villeneuve, and then writing down lists compiled Howard Galganov and Diane Francis as credible references. This article uses just this tactic. If you allow this article, then you allow and article like that (you could write one in 10 minutes cutting and pasting from Howard Galganov's website)

The "balancing" of the article makes it sound that the Quebec media is largely in cahoots to invent "Quebec bashing". That too is unfair because, again, the sources in the Quebec media that allege Quebec-bashing are largely editorial and polemic, and extremely ideological. This is why the article is so long. "Context" is put in just to make the other side look bad. It's a zero sum game, and it results in a longer and longer article full of references to polemic sources.

In short, the concurrent themes are that a) that English Canadians are in cahoots to rob Quebec of independence (a very common theme in certain sovereignist circles); b) that the Quebec media is in cahoots to assure Quebec independence ... It's in the nature of incendiary titles to serve as a platform for legitimizing these views. --soulscanner (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the article exaggerates anti-francophone bias among anglophones, but does not allege any kind of coordination, then you are alleging non-neutral POV, not a conspiracy theory. What specific elements make it sound like there is a coordinated effort in the francophone media to play up Quebec bashing? Joeldl (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the article suggests "that anti-Quebec bigotry is rampant in English-speaking Canada". I believe someone who formerly denies that there could be a problem might think there is a kind of exaggeration here. In reality, article only shows the tip of the iceberg.

I do not think it is accurate to state that the references "are all by rather extreme nationalists." The belief that there are "extreme nationalists" to be scared of is precisely the effect that Quebec bashing is supposed to have on people. (I concede that Raymond Villeneuve is not exactly soft).

You might not like that some of the top intellectuals in Quebec happen to favour sovereignty, but that is just reality.

Jean-François Lisée is a source, and a main one for this article. How would you describe his extreme nationalism? He worked in the USA for years, is very knowledgeable of international relations, is about the truest example of a social democrat one can find in Quebec. He spells open mindedness, intelligence and is known as such to both francophones and anglophones.

Norman Lester is another brilliant and irreproachable journalist. What is extremist about him? No doubt some people do not like his message (that before accusing Quebecers of all the things they are accused of all the time, Canadians in the ROC ought to look in their own backyard first), but is this a reason to shoot the messenger?

Michel David, Chantal Hébert, Antoine Robitaille, Robert Dutrisac, Benoit Aubin, Graham Fraser, Luc Chartrand, Michel Vastel. How are these all "rather extreme nationalists"?

Guy Bouthillier? It is during his term as president that the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society did the most effort to reach out the patriotic/ethnic associations of Quebec minorities with a message of national solidarity. To call him extremist is gratuitous and unfounded. He was however misquoted several time, but that is always the case with representatives of the SSJB of Montreal.

To disprove Soulscanner's main claim, there is even an entire paragraph stating "Graham Fraser, an English Canadian journalist noted for his sympathy for Quebec, has tempered both sides. "This phenomenon (of English Canadian Francophobia) exists, I do not doubt it; I have read enough of Alberta Report to know that there are people that think bilingualism is a conspiracy against English Canadians to guarantee jobs for Quebecers — who are all bilingual, anyway.", he wrote. "I have heard enough call-in radio shows to know that these sentiments of fear and rage are not confined to the Canadian west. But, I do not think these anti-francophone prejudices dominate the Canadian culture."

It appears to me that the burden of the proof is on Soulscanner who ought to explain us precisely what he finds needs to be fixed in the article.

What the people who denounce Quebec bashing claim is that it is unacceptable that some prominent journalists, columnists, editorialists, TV personality, etc. manage to keep their jobs after displaying such contempt for Quebecers and incompetence in the performing of their work. That Robert Guy Scully ended up with the big job at Radio-Canada after writing what he wrote in The Washington Post is unbelievable. That Don Cherry has not been fired yet is not acceptable. Is it even conceivable that the same thing could have happened on Quebec French language TV? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to understand how one could think, as Soulscanner does, this article should be deleted. Events that have received widespread attention in the media should be recorded in Wikipedia. The fact that there is a widely held view, discussed in the media, that Quebec bashing is something that exists, must be reported. I have seen Soulscanner go as far as to say that the Grand dictionnaire terminologique was biased because it came from the Quebec government, so maybe he thinks that the francophone media are biased in a way that makes them an unsuitable source for Wikipedia. (Of course, a distinction must be maintained between factual reporting and opinion pieces, but even opinions widely expressed in the francophone press are notable.) Joeldl (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith instead of speculating on the personal views and motivations of editors. This is not a place to get into personal attacks. Lets stay focussed on the topic.

Anglophobia in Quebec has also been widely noted in the media. Should there be an article on this too? Would an article that lists every incident perceived as anglophobic or anti-Canadian in the media be fair? I say no, because it exaggerates the importance of the phenomenon. The title itself legitimizes the existance of the phenomenon as a notable one. Similarly, this article exaggerates the importance of a phenomenon. A neutral treatment would not be as accusatory in tone as this article. This type of exaggeration is invariably used to push a political agenda. Most of the material here could be transfered to other articles in Wikipedia, Quebec Nationalism, for one.

This article would need to be entirely rewritten to be neutral. It would need to focus on those in the Quebec media who invented the term and use the term, rather than the people they accuse. For example, the political background and activities of Norman Lester, one of the greatest proponents of this term, should be thoroughly described. I don't believe that this can be done though, given the conspiratorial overtones of the original article. --soulscanner (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks in what I said. It strains credulity to understand how one could think this is not a notable topic, given its widespread coverage in the media. The most reasonable assumption to explain your position is that you believe those media are somehow biased.

It is beyond doubt that anti-Quebec sentiment exists and is a notable phenomenon. Its extent may be in some doubt, and this is typically the kind of article in which varying notable opinions on the topic need to be reported. Generally, if its discussion in the media tends to take the form of discussion of specific instances, then that form of discussion is appropriate here as well.

While the issue of anti-Quebec sentiment in general could not reduced to studying a handful of cases, it seems normal that discussion of anti-Quebec sentiment in the anglophone media ahould focus on those cases that have garnered considerable attention in Quebec.

I disagree that "investigation" of everybody's background is necessary. That is overkill. Can you imagine if every federalist politician needed to have a long introduction about their history before presenting their views? Normand Lester's views have been widely aired in the media. That's enough.

If you want to talk about specific non-neutral statements, that will be helpful. But I am not at all inclined to agree with you that this article sounds like a conspiracy theory, or should be deleted. Joeldl (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You've ignored my main point and accused me of not seeing the francophone media as worthy of mention. That is a personal attack, and an assumption of bad faith, amounting to an accusation of francophobia.

Let's get back to my actual point: That a long list of perceived slights from sovereignist sources (which is what the core of this article is) does not constitute a legitimate Wikipedia article. Do you believe that a neutral article on "Racism in Quebec" or "Anglophobia in Quebec", with a long list of marginal francophone media figures that have uttered anti English or anti Canadian slurs, is also in order? It has certainly been noted in the English media which, according to your criteria, would constitute it as noteworthy enough to create an article. Are you willing to allow for an article that condenses the widely reported incidents of perceived anglophobia and racism in Quebec in the English Canadian media? Are you willing to accept Diane Francis or Jan Wong as a credible source in such an article, as you accept Normand Lester here? Or are there different rules for English and French-speaking journalists in Canada? You say that Normand Lester should not get such scrutiny, yet Jan Wong and Diane Francis get such scrutiny here. Again, a clear double standard.

There probably is a neutral way of approaching this topic of these media barbs, which are notable, but not with such titles as "Quebec bashing" or "Racism in Quebec" that prejudice the article just by their names. A good criteria would be an article where these titles redirect to that page. Both "Quebec bashing"and "Racism in Quebec" exist, but neither compares to real racism, like you had in the U.S. South circa 1950 or in various regions of the Balkans where minorities are permanently disadvantaged. Articles called "Serb Bashing" or "Croatian racism" would ring as obvious screeds, and so does this article. names such as "Englsh-French relations in Canada", "Quebec sovereignty debate", or "Quebec Independence" would be more apt to lead to a neutral article. --soulscanner (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, please cite WP:RS that call the people cited in the article "marginal media figures", otherwise, please admit that this is your personal POV. Personnally, my only concern is that the list of examples may be too long.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Soulscanner professes to respect the francophone media, yet feels the need to add the description "an organization frequently accused of nationalist bias" to "Radio-Canada". This would be the equivalent of adding "frequently accused of liberalism" after every mention of CBS, ABC and NBC (any network other than Fox News, really) in a US-related article. This is particularly ironic given Soulscanner's allegations of a "conspiracy theory".Joeldl (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When you're ready to discuss the main point of my objections, I'll respond to posts. I'll repeat the main point. This articles's main premise of "Quebec bashing" is based primarily on the partisan editorial allegations of sovereignists and nationalists in the Quebec media (e.g. Lisee, Bouthillier, Lester, Philpott, etc.) commenting on editorialists in the English media. The list of examples serves as a rogues gallery, that may even be considered libelous. It may as well be named "Stupid things English Canadian editorialists have said". It is a soapbox article. I believe this is a bad idea. However, if others will accept articles that serve as conspiratorial soapboxes from the opposite side of the political spectrum, based on the accusations of English-speaking editorialists or even francophone federalists in the Quebec media commenting on sovereignists (articles such as "Anglophobia in Quebec", "Pur et Dur", "Souverainist de religion", and "Ethnic nationalism in Quebec") that serve as a repository for stupid things sovereignists have said, I might consider that articles based on editiorial commentary and polemics might be acceptable. Personally, I prefer a neutrally titled article "Quebec sovereignty debate" that documents and explains all these terms while balancing both sides. --soulscanner (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I found two good references to a polite and well-researched denounciation of the calumnies against Quebec in the English-language media:

- Barthe, Ulric (1917). Jean-Baptiste to his Anglo-Canadian brother. An Open Letter, Quebec City: The Telegraph printing, 26 p. (online)

- Moore, William Henry (1918). The clash! A study in nationalities, London: Dent, 300 p. (online)

As for the imagined "long list of marginal francophone media figures that have uttered anti English or anti Canadian slurs", you'll find reference to that in Willian Johnson's Anglophobia made in Quebec (1991), a good example of a first class Quebec-bashing piece which was denounced by various people, especially Donald Smith, a native English speaker from Manitoba, in D'une nation à l'autre. Des deux solitudes à la cohabitation (1997). Maybe we'll end up with a good coverage of the topic one day after all... :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee you that slurs like "bloke" and "tete carre", "Westmount rhodesians", and "colonizers" are very real, as I've been subject to them myself. They are not fictitious. They deserve to be documented, but in a way that is neutral. The same can be said for anti-French slurs like "frog", "Pepsi" and "pea soup".

But I think you've understood my point of representing marginal statements and putting them front an center to advance a political agenda. This article is just like Johnson's book in that its title itself acts as political polemic and taints the POV of the article from the start.

If you allow an article on "Quebec-bashing", then you allow an article on "Quebec anglophobia". Both exist of course, but both are better seen in the context of the Quebec sovereignty and/or language debate. Allowing such articles prejudices the POV from the start. I'm for moving the good content of this article that treats both the topics of Quebec-bashing and Quebec anglophobia in their proper context. Note that none of the sources you quote call their books "Quebec-bashing" or "anglophobia"; they present their books in a neutral context that examines occasional culture clashes between French and English-speaking communities in Canada. I recommend a similarly titled article. --soulscanner (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "francis" :
  • Diane Francis. "Quebec language policy isn't funny". April 11, 2000.
  • [http://www.dianefrancis.com/francais/maitres.doc ''Maîtres chanteurs chez-nous!''] by Diane Francis
  • "Quebec language policy isn't funny" by Diane Francis, ''Financial Post'', April 11, 2000, retrieved September 21, 2006
• "Kay" :
  • Barbara Kay. "The rise of Quebecistan". ''The National Post'', August 9, 2006.
  • Barbara Kay, "Say what you want (as long as it's in French), ''National Post'', "November 22, 2006 http://www.barbarakay.ca/archive/20061122saywhatyouwant.html

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)