Talk:Quebec/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Things to add

  • geography
  • history of referenda
  • Francophones elsewhere in Canada
  • Quebec language policy, including education
  • separate immigration rules from ROC
  • Role of the Office de la langue francais (The Language Police)


I'm interested in this:

as in, Je me souviens que né sous le lis, je croîs sous la rose. (I remember that, being born under the lily (France), I grow under the rose (Great Britain).

Do we have evidence for this? I had heard the quotation before, but have not heard any official source linking it to the motto of Quebec. Also, do we have a source for the quotation? - user:Montrealais



I removed a good deal of material about the language question for pretty blatant NPOV violation. We definitely need a clarification on this: In 1978, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa used the Notwithstanding Clause contained in the 1982 Constitution to annul the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling. Mind explaining how Booboo invoked the 1982 constitution, which Quebec never signed, in 1978? -- user:Montrealais

I got a strong sense of deja vu about this. Wasn't this same point reverted almost a year ago? For just about the same reasons? --Ed Poor

I will be reinstating what was deleted. READ IT CAREFULLY. It is not a POV, it is fact. And, because the Separatist government of Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution it still applies and Quebec has every right to use it. I will be adding more on the Notwithstanding Clause under "Canada". Read facts: Premier Robert Bourassa invoked the Notwithstanding Clause after Hyman Singer won his case against the Government of Quebec and the Office de la Langue Francais who ordered him to take down his sign with English on it on his Sherbrooke St. W.. Montreal, Stationey Store. The section of Bill 101 that made the use of even one word in English on a business sign or advertisement was declared as unconstitutional by: 1) The Superior Court of Quebec (see writings of Chief Justice Madame Lyse Lemieux, 2) The Quebec Court of Appeal, and 3) The Supreme Court of Canada. The cost to defend his rights enshrined in the Constitution of Canada in 1867, bankrupted Hyman Singer. In the end, his victory meant nothing when Premier Robert Bourassa used the Notwithstanding Clause to nulify the Court's verdict. Further, Bill 22 of 1974 did not make French trhe official language of Quebec. Bill 101, enacted in 1977, did on the very first line. In future, please delete and insert based on facts, not propoganda....DW

I don't see how lines like "However, the Federal Government in Ottawa, responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens, has never fulfilled its obligation to overrule the Government of Quebec's unconstitutional action" could be seen as anything other than inflammatory - certainly not NPOV. If you contend that the above constitutes the facts, you can put that, but there is no need for this kind of breast-beating. Sovereignists do not have a monopoly on propaganda. - user:Montrealais


RE: "However, the Federal Government in Ottawa, responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens, has never fulfilled its obligation to overrule the Government of Quebec's unconstitutional action" -- FACT: the Constitution which in fact in 1867 was not a Constitution at all but an act passed by the British Parliament called the "British-North America Act (BNA). It, and Pierre Trudeau's 1982 repatriation gives the FEDERAL government the power to overturn any legislation by any Province. This same provision exits in all countries such as the USA, etc. Without that, there is no such thing as a country. Hence, wehen I speak (past and present) I deal with facts. The Federal Gov't in Ottawa has a Constitutional obligation (suggest you read Professor/lawyer/ constitution expert Julius Grey - McGill University plus thousand of other constitutional writings and Court rulings) to cancel any legislation by any Province that violates the Constitution. Ottawa never did that in the Singer case out of fear that Quebec would vote to split the country into three pieces, a great country of tolerance that was voted by the UN as the best in the world for nine straight years. And, Bill 101 has been declared unconstitutional several times in the past 25 years. Suggest you go to the McGill library and read before espousing falsehoods and propaganda.... DW
AND, while I'm at it, under the Quebec Government's Provincial Bill 101, when an English speaking person is in any Court in Quebec in a suit brought by a French speaking person, the case will be heard in the French language only and if the English participant in the case wishes to understand a) the proceedings, b) the testimony of witnesses, c) his/her lawyer's arguments and examinations, or d) the judge, he/she must hire and pay for a translator. This also violates the BNA and the 1982 Constitution. If it is deemed beneficial for my fellow Americans (yes, I have dual citizenship and was born in France to boot!) who know zip about Canada let alone Quebec and its language laws, I will incorporate this into the comments on Quebec's Napoleonic Code (the 1) Civil Code and 2) the Code of Civil Procedure).

I don't think your style is winning you any friends. And I would like to see citations for your assertions other than just "look it up and don't bother me". You have failed to say just what portion of the article as edited is false, anyway. You made the assertion - you support it. - user:Montrealais

I don't work hard to create massive amounts of files as accurate as possible for this encyclopedia project to make friends. Nor, do I promote my heterosexual lifestyle by dotting various articles with hetrosexual references. My assertions with respect to the Canadian Constitution/ Bill 101, Quebec Civil Law are fundamental facts easily ascertainable by anyone who can read. Like every Wikipedia article and every single word of information, volunteered on the Quebec page or elsewhere, I do not need to quote chapter and verse. However, I make no assertions, I quote fact only. People who talk about Quebecois isolation are absolutely not providing NPOV and anyone claiming to be a university student and doesn't know of the Notwithstanding Clause has a serious problem particularly if they are homosexual and do or might some day reside in Alberta where the Premier, Ralph Klein, has sworn to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause if the Supreme Court sanctions gay marriages. Suggest again, before you remove my or anyone's facts that you take the time to read and go so far as to actually research something before you blindly and ignorantly (EXAMPLE:15:46 Sep 30, 2002 . . Montrealais (Extreme NPOV violation, including downright absurdities - see talk) remove it. ... DW Esq.
"Absurd, by the way, is someone who thinks that because a Separatist Government in Quebec whose purpose is to destroy Canada, did not sign the 1982 Constitution, it renders the country's Constitution invalid in one Province. Mind boggling ignorance....DW (again)
More absurdity: The sovereignist movement burst onto the scene with the October Crisis of 1970, What happened to the RIN, Gregoire, Bourgault and friends? Who were the bombers who murdered civilians in the early sixties? British loyalists?
You say the FLQ was a fringe group! I've added a comment by the respected Rene Levesque on his own party's support for terrorists. You may verify this on CBC's website (keyword Jacques Rose), La Presse, Le Devoir, etc. etc.
This is more than enough. You are not even trying to be NPOV w.r.t. this article. "Murdered" is factual; "brutally murdered" is an attempt at inflammatory rhetoric. There are already articles on WWII, the Nazis, etc; there can be no reason to reiterate about starving, tortured French citizens other than to attempt to inflame people against Quebec's stance on conscription. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.
To briefly deal with another canard - whatever the Supremes said about the government's measures to promote the use of French (101, 178, etc.) - if it were "unconstitutional" to declare French the official language of a province, New Brunswick would not be the only officially bilingual province of Canada. (En passant, it is a hell of a lot easier to get English services from Quebec City than it would be to get French services from (say) Regina or St. John's.)
Furthermore, it is not up to you to state what the federal government's obligations are or are not. That is for a public forum, a teach-in, a protest, a letter to the editor, an election, or a referendum - but not an encyclopedia article.
And I really appreciate that snide reference to my sexual orientation. It really makes you look like a mature and intellectually honest scholar. - user:Montrealais
Oy. (That's how we say it in my dialect of English.) Look on the bright side--once they start bringing in irrelevancies like your sexual orientation, the whole situation is clearer to the casual observer who doesn't know much about Quebec (a category that probably includes most Wikipedians). Vicki Rosenzweig

I made the changes to a biased, non-NPOV article that avoids major facts of history in order to propogate a contributor's own point of view. As V. Rosenzweig and 99.9% of Americans (and the rest of the world) know nothing of Quebec or Canada (see Canadian Wikipedian jokes), it is through an encyclopedia that they can learn. As such, distortion and omissions are not a part of knowledge. As to the reference to sexual orientation, why must you include it as part of your resume? Does it define your ability to absorb or transmit knowledge from/to an encyclopedia? My point is that many Wikipedia articles have references to gay rights etc. when the matter in the vast majority of cases is irrelevant to the facts/knowledge being passed on. I have not found one article, such as: Napoleon Bonaparte, hetrosexual etc. I really don't care if Leonardo da Vinci was gay or not, only what he accomplished. This is called equality, tolerance and simple respect for all human beings. I am however interested if Leonardo was persecuted but in this same vein an article on Quebec that mentions religion or government legislation should then deal with persecution where it applies in fact and in law....DW

P.S. to Montrealais: People who write articles solely expressing their own opinion but refer to WE have major problems. AND while I'm at it: IF taking a chain and wrapping it around Pierre Laporte's neck while he stuggles desperately for air for several minutes (see coroner's report) until he stopped breathing then is dumped in the trunk of a car isn't a BRUTAL murder, please tell the world what it is. I'm sure Monsieur Laporte's widow and children would like to be enlightened by your wisdom.

Do we have to review the concept of an encyclopedia here? A murder may well be brutal, but it's not in a damn encyclopedia you will find that information. - user:Montrealais

You are right, your wording and distortions, and irrelevant gay references have no place in an encyclopedia. Glad we agree!...DW

If you have a problem with my work to expand knowledge of gay history, take it to a relevant page or to e-mail. It's really sad that you feel the need to bring it up in a completely unrelated debate. Judging from the complaints on your user page, it is apparent that you are having some major problems with the concept of NPOV as we practice it here at Wikipedia. You aren't going to win this argument by bringing up my sexual orientation, and you aren't going to improve this article by making it sound like an Alliance Quebec brochure. user:Montrealais

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a gay article. It is the unnecessary insertion of gay references that I strongly object to. Unless of course, you would like me to follow the same patter and start inserting hetrosexual in all biographies etc. So you are gay. Big deal. No one cares, just don't continue to reference it articles unnecessarily. Next, I am from the great State of Maine, Fort Fairfield, to be precise. Not Quebec. But, I obviously know much more about Canada and Quebec history than you....DW (enough!)

There is a great deal of material discussing the relevancy of sexual orientation to biography in Talk:Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people. If you wish to discuss it there, do so, but this is not the appropriate place. user:Montrealais

DW, please don't antagonize Montrealais. Rather, follow my example. I have made no secret of my adamant opposition to homosexuality, yet I've managed to work with openly gay Wikipedians (such as Maveric) without friction.

It's all a matter of understanding our common goal: to make an excellent encyclopedia article. If your goal is to get another contributor to agree with you, forget it. You'll never win.

It takes a lot of precious time to type on these talk pages. How about channeling some of your energy into reading our neutral point of view policy page? If you need help understanding it, or conforming to it, I'd be happy to help. --Ed Poor

Regretfully, folks, I don't take crap from no one. I believe learning is a great gift to be passed on to others hence the effort (channeling energy) I put into this serious project. One of these days I will/might make a list of every new article (numerous) I have posted or have dramatically improved upon. When done, although eclectic, they are, I believe, detailed, factual, paragraphed like books for easy reading, informative, interesting and worth learning for those with an interest in that particular area... after many edits. Example tonight: Roy Orbison who I labelled as a singer songwriter, NOT a hetrosexual singer songwriter.....DW
By the way? With respect to copyright? (Which I do not violate). Does anyone know what Voltaire had to say on the subject?...DW
Aw shucks! What the hell. While I'm at it, I usually try to give flowers to my gay friends, a nice bouquet of pisonyas.
Really mature. - user:Montrealais

Can someone put a border around the flag so its white doesn't blend into the background? -- Zoe

I inserted the reference, with a link, to "Cultural Imperialism" on this page to demonstrate that, in contrast to the myth of oppression, Britain in fact did something quite extraordinary at the time (1774) by allowing the French in Quebec to maintain their religion, language and legal system. France did not in its colonies, including up to 1954 when France had imposed the French language, laws, and religion (Cathedral of Notre Dame in Hanoi) on the people of Vietnam, amongst others....DW

I certainly agree that Britain's actions in passing the Quebec Act were extraordinary in 1774, but it wasn't just an altruistic abandonment of imperialism, cultural or otherwise. It was a well-conceived tactic to prevent Quebec from taking the same direction that it's more southerly colonies would a mere two years later. Cultural imperialism can take place without any political control at all. The United States has become a master of exercising cultural imperialism in Canada and in many other countries, and has done so without any overt political control. --but I don't think it would help this article if we went too far up that road in this context. Eclecticology 21:36 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/e/Talk%7EQuebec_archive_1_3227.html"