Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Controversy over criticism of Quebec society article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion before considering re-nomination: no concensus, September 23, 2006, see discussion.

Archives Archive 1

Contents 1 French Montrealistan police launch antisemitic hoax 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.1.1 Survey - Support votes 2.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 2.2 Discussion 3 Title 4 An utterly different set of facts 5 City of Westmount 6 Quebec-bashing is back 7 Mark Steyn 8 About the example cases 9 Removal of the "Brockville incident" section 10 Note on Adrien Arcand 11 City of Westmount -- where's the criticism? 12 deletion? 13 Current title is ridiculous and offensive 14 Requested move 2 14.1 Survey 14.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 14.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 14.2 Discussion (2) 14.3 Alternative titles 14.3.1 Anti-Quebec sentiments 14.3.2 Criticism of Quebec society

[edit] 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 100,00, (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 thir beliefs do not allow them to look at women who are not related to them. It is the way they respcect 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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...^[1]", 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Requested move 2

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)