Talk:Anti-Canadianism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Silliness

This article is just a copy-paste of the intro paragraph to Anti-Americanism.--Pharos 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"A few acres of snow"

Please quote Voltaire correctly; see the article entitled "a few acres of snow."

Tortured logic?

Bite me. Canadian self-deprecating humour very very very often focuses on false American stereotypes of Canada (viz. the American who drives up to the border in July with skis on his roof).

Decent edits in general, though, Marskell ;) --Gleemonex

It was just bad syntax. Marskell 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete this page

Someone please delete this page. If you read the article, there are only three mentions of anti-Canadianism other than that of Americans: Volitare, Brazil and Quebec. That's not anti-Canadianism. That's an American perception of Canada.

What's Canada Canada? Anyway, the fact that an article needs to be expanded isn't typically grounds for deletion. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Haha. You crack me up. The problem is the entire article reeks of anti-Canadianism from an American point of view. Again, I asseverate my opinion: this is not really an article about anti-Canadianism. Just a perception of anti-Canadianism through the lenses of an American.

Bouchard

OK, the only thing stopping me from reverting this [1] is 3RR. Quote the edit summary, "This is ridiculous. Bouchard is a separatist, not a Canadian. This makes him neither left nor right." There are so many things wrong with that it's laughable. Maybe he's not a Canadian in spirit, but he lost the 1995 referendum, and thus, still resides in Canada and must pay the GST. Second of all, do you really think that if someone's not Canadian, they can't be left wing or right wing? OMG.... CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC) After I read that I asked myself two questions: why would I give the flying **** about 3RR. Sure, Bouchard is a Canadian (I stand corrected on my first accusation that he is not a Canadian), but who are you to tell me that Bouchard is a leftist or rightist? For all that I care, Bouchard is a Quebec nationalist and nothing but a Quebec nationalist. (like his buddy Rene Leveque) And no, I did not say that if "someone's not Canadian, they can't be left wing or right wing." Politics 101 for yer head.

And what is up with this? [2] Just because you disagree with the POV doesn't mean you can delete. Dude, you are very seriously hurting this article. Please, please stop hurting this article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, how old are you? It's not me who seems to be disagreeing with this article. There seems to be a lot of people who don't agree with this article.

And now this: [3] What makes you prefer a sentence fragment to a sentence? Are you doing all this in good faith? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Am I not entitled to condense information in a manner that is both informative, succint and yet germane to the topic of the article at hand? Where, in the Wikipedia guidebook, am I not allowed to turn sentences into...what do call them, framgnets?

And, for the record, [4] actual REFERENCE SECTIONS are preferred to external links right in the middle of the text that don't work. What was once a valid stub has been turned into a mangled train wreck. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

::::That correction is valid. I have provided the proper website.

Lots of things wrong with your arguments. According to the first link provided above, you did say only Canadians can be left-wing or right-wing. "not a Canadian. This makes him neither left nor right." Secondly Rene Levesque was well-known for being a social democrat. He nationalized everything. "Really, how old are you? It's not me who seems to be disagreeing with this article. There seems to be a lot of people who don't agree with this article." Er, no. If you actually go through the history of this article and the AfD, you'll note that the article being voted on had no actual substance; it was a silly copy and paste. That's what was "Not really needed here" according to some of the merge and delete voters, and the keep voters wanted what had been written here- "some sources of people hating Canadians must be around somewhere", "there is definitely enough anti-Canadianism down there to warrant an article," "Keep, expand, and verify." No one had a problem with what you deleted. What you had deleted hadn't actually been written yet. In fact there seemed to be no moral objections. Anti-Canadianism will never be as weighty as anti-Semitism. You are getting upset over a very silly issue. While we're on the issue of the article's history, no, I did not start the article, as you insist below. It started out as a silly copy and paste by someone and a few other editors, including myself, turned it into an article. "Am I not entitled to condense information in a manner that is both informative, succint and yet germane to the topic of the article at hand?" What on earth is informative about "Michael Moore's 1995 satirical [Canadian Bacon (film)|Canadian Bacon]]"? Canadian Bacon what? Why is it in this article? What's the relation to anti-Canadianism? Finally, your replacement of one image with a copyrighted image may not be fair use. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these even arguments?

Really. Are these even arguments? Have you even read the article yourself? Other than Volitare, Brazil and Bouchard, it reeks of utter anti-Canadianism by an America. I'm glad its a mangled train-wreck. In fact, I'm hoping this article/"stub" gets deleted in a couple of days.

Oh by the way, I think you need to get that "Canadian" off your name, CanadianCaesar. Looks like you aren't really that Canadian after all, eh?

By the way, I looked at the achives of the debate over whether this article should be deleted. The archives show that most of the people wanted to either merge this article with Canada or delete it all together.
- The article has significantly changed since the AfD debate. Anyway, I don't think "it reeks of utter anti-Canadianism by an America." ("an America"?) It does not endorse any views, but reports them, or at least it did until you deleted everything you didn't agree with. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Ah yes, your political correctness provides me with yet another reason to laugh. Really, are you so grammatically perspicacious in public as you are right now? Please remember that, as I have so wisely pointed out, that despite your mumblings and ramblings, there are only THREE NON-AMERICAN ANTI-CANADIAN VIEWS: BRAZIL, VOLITARE AND QUEBEC. Doesn't this reek of anti-Canadianism by an American?
    - By the way, just for the record, most of the views expressed here either belong in the following articles: Canadian Culture, Canada, Quebec Sovereigntist Movement or Canada-U.S. Relations.
      - Just to top it all off, weren't you the one who started this article?

Questionable information

I think that the "modern perception" of Canada is questionable. Don't people view Canadians as peaceful and peacekeepers?

Tortured Logic (2)

If this page was posted by a person who "copied and pasted" the information from the anti-American site, that is VANDALISM. In that case, we have a moral authority to delete this page as this page is founded on vandalism. And if we can't summon the moral authority to delete this page, then I have every right to shorten this article.

By the way, your Canadian yourself. So why you would legitimize this page is just inscrutable.

You still haven't resonded to the logic above. I have no idea how anyone can get this upset over something so trivial. What this article started out as, it is not anymore. It has a history of non-nonsense content. I am a Wikipedian and welcome neutral, informative content. I don't see why we can't have this while we have anti-Americanism and anti-Australian sentiment. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are inane as they are puerile. "Why cant we have anti-Canadianism" when we have "anti-Australianism" or "anti-Americanism?" Is that what you are corroborating the legitimacy of this article upon? Just because Australia has an "anti-Australianism" or "anti-Americanism" doesn't have any bearing in our discussion. Stop trying to deflect the focus of our argument. The main issue here is the legitimacy of this article which, in accordance to the first post, was founded as a silly "post-up" from the anti-American site. This is VANDALISM. As you have explicitly stated, Wikipedia is a congregation of impartial and diaphenous, "non-nonsense" content, not content that is "copied and pasted" for childish reasons. Your punctiliousness and alacrity to ensure that Wikipedia is neutral and informative is admirable. So why in the hell can you not summon the courage to delete this page, as this page is founded on childish and biased pretenses?

Moreover, I find it interesting how you have brung up anti-Australianism and anti-Americanism. First things first: in the wake of the recent war in iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that America is seen as the "Great Satan" around the world. Although I do like America, I would challenge you to name one country where it's people (not the government) align themselves with America. i would also like to remind you that Australia also participated in the war in Iraq, thus generating hatred among the Middle East. As a matter of fact, its embassy in Indonesia (or somewhere near that place) was bombed. Need I remind you the Bali Bombings in October of 2002? These actions are clear indicators of anti-Australianism and Americanism, thus giving at least SOME legitimate grounds to the article. On the contrary, other than Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter, i would challenge you to find any country whose people's openly dislike Canada.

I have filed a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27 Anti-Canadianism. Looking for analogous articles is a good way to establish notability of one article, and I repeat, the article is not the same article that went to AfD. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's great. I will have a FIELD DAY explaining why this article should be deleted when the moderator comes knocking on my door. By the way, I didn't threaten you when I dared you to change my revisions. I was simply responding to your threat when you said, "Just to let you know, I am going to change your revisions."

Ok Whats up?

Why don't all sides paraphrase their arguments? Please state only your opinion, not what you think others opinions are.

Lets get an acurate picture of the problems with the article.Eagle talk 06:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lets make sure we sign all of our comments with ~~~~.

The point I think I have stood by in relation to the article is that there is a difference between attacking something and reporting on something that is attacking something. What matters to me is not that x is true but that a notable y said x. Note that the version I have been reverting to had an actual reference section. It did not try to hide anything; unflattering evaluations of Canada could be included if they were verifiable. I believe also that an article with a history of vandalism and good edits must be maintained at a good version. Vandalism is reverted, or, if the article originated as nothing but nonsense, it is deleted or rewritten. I do, as a side note, have a soft spot for vandalized redirects that, turned into nonsense articles, are brought to AfD. This article originated as nonsense. But I do not believe vandalism in the history gives the article an irrideemable existence. I also believe patriotism should not stand in the way of the truth; in fact, in order for patriotism to be meaningful it must address the truth and adapt. Note also the image in the version I have been reverting to is public domain; the one now is fair use. I take the flag as it was meant, as satire. I do not find the article offensive because, as I have said, anti-Canadianism will never be as weighty as anti-Semitism. If it only reports on what other people are saying, it is not an attack on me or my country. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All that I have to say is already said in my last post up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.46.241 (talk • contribs).

Clarify

Ok, in a nutshell, this debate is over whether or not the article should be deleted? Am I right, if I am not, please tell me. Eagle talk 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He does seem to be going back and forth from that argument to what the article should say; why he takes such interest in editing the article if he wants it at AfD instead is beyond me. I don't think he really understands our deletion system, as he seems to be challenging me to speedy it. It would most certainly not be a candidate. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please state your own position, do you believe the debate is over deletion? Please allow user:70.27.46.241 to speak for himself. Thanks! Eagle talk 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  - I initially nominated this for AfD and you'll note if you look it was a "talking point" nomination. I wanted it confirmed one way or the other and enough people said keep. If it is just a matter of whether the article should be deleted I'd say no, we've had one debate. Marskell 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Not to discurage disscussion above, I am curious about the reasoning for the removal of a referance. (please disscuss in this section and the one above)

^ Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, CTV.ca, 14 December 2005; Susan Riley, "Harper's suspect evolution", 16 December 2005, A18.

What do you all think about putting this back in to the article? Whatever side this supports, (I don't know) as we are building an encyclopedia, we should have references from as many of the viewpoints as possible. Have a look at WP:CITE Eagle talk 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget WP:CIVIL Eagle talk

The reference should be added back again. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear-up

Can somebody please tell me why we haven't deleted this page yet? The last time I checked wasn't this page founded on vandalism itself?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.46.241 (talk • contribs). NOTE:Matched contribs from history.Eagle talk 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you expecting. Dear god it can't be deleted just on a whim. I quote from Wikipedia:Be Bold, "If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it." It is perfectly allowed to write over nonsense. It doesn't contaminate the whole article. Only an AfD can do it, and the result was keep. Secondly, if you want it gone so bad, why are you editing it? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- You said that this article was founded on a person who COPIED AND PASTED from the anti-American website. Yet in the same breath your telling me that what I'm doing is bootless and vandalism. Go figure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.46.241 (talk • contribs) NOTE:Matched contribs from history.Eagle talk 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't really know how to get this article for deletion. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.46.241 (talk • contribs) NOTE:Matched contribs from history.Eagle talk 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

- It wasn't pasted from some other website. It was from the Anti-American article. And how is it inconsistent to say what you're doing hurts the article? Both the first version and your version are insufficient. If you renominate it for deletion, what then. It will survive, and you will continue to mess it up. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm not Canadia or the user above, but i would like to object to your acusation that if the user above nominated the article for deletion, it's going to survive. How would you know? I'm not even sure if the article reflects true anti-Canadianism, as true anti-Canadianism doesn't come form from only Americans. I'm not saying that the article is written by an American, but most of the accusations are from Americans.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.46.241 (talk • contribs) NOTE:Matched contribs from history.Eagle talk 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok: here is what I have done. I refered the article to WP:3O otherwise known as, Wikipedia Third Opinoin. We need more imput into this... but as the mediator I cannot be the one to give a third opinion. So I ask that we all wait a couple days for another person to stop by.Eagle talk 05:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

I don't think another AfD for this article is really going to change anything. I participate in AfD on a pretty regular basis and looking at the previous debate I can tell you that another debate would easily result in a 'keep' decision. I think it might even qualify for a speedy keep depending on who nominated it. At this point I think the article just needs more work. Start with specific sentences that are problematic, and see if you can work out a solution. --Hetar 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I think. I think that the entire article should be outright deleted. Really, this article was founded on vandalism itself. Shouldn't it be deleted? Canadia

Read my quote from Be Bold. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's my response. "If somebody writes an inferior article, it's okay to change it." Canadia 9:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can we look to see what we can do to improve the article. Just put things wrong with this article in a list below. Try to keep each entry short and to the point. (just put what you think is wrong, don't try to refute other entries... pretend they don't exist). I will start.

This article needs to be referenced according to WP:CITE. (we are lacking citations). Eagle talk 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Particularly for extrapolation and comments on supposed intent ("this is probably what Voltaire meant" etc.) Marskell 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is flawed from the start. How now is it that anti-Canadianism is comprised of mainly anti-Canadian sentiment from American Conservatives? Unlike anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism isn't global; it's only a small, concentrated group of peoples that seem to dislike the policies of Canada. Canadia 10:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

References would be my major concern; I suppose it could also refer to the propaganda of Canada's actual enemies, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and particularly WWII Japan. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 17:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1. What does Nazi Germany, the USSR and WWII Japan have to do with this discussion? Canadia

70.27.46.241

If you want to do an AFD (articles for deletion) you are going to be creating a page (the AFDwhich IP accounts can't so why don't you create an account and we'll talk about how to do an AFD once you are done. Please stop revert warring in the meanwhile though. Lots of the people on AFD are admins and they will take a dim view of you reverting back and fourth. jbolden1517^Talk 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So how do you delete a page again? Canadia, 10:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Evanx

Looking at the debates and the previous AfD, I believe there is substantial support for the article. The issue is then if it is notable enough, which is provided by references. Hence, if such a phenomenon proves to exist, and that it fits the polciies of Wikipedia, it should then be allowed a place in it. An AfD without valid justification is just wasting the community's time and effort. I reccomend looking at the WP:SNOWBALL essay for why such a case would prove fruitless.

The proper cause of action is to improve the article with NPOV statements that will lend credit to all parties involved. Otherwise, the vandals will inevitably face a ban or AfC, both of which are very unpleasant scenarios.

I reiterate that the premise for everyone is to be involved and work cooperatively despite divergences in opinion, towards a common goal of improvement.

-- ^Evanx(tag?) 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Improving the article

Ok, it looks like improvement to the article needs to start with getting good references. To encourage that references are added, I will treat any removal of references from the article as vandalism and will deal with it accordingly. If references are bad bring the issue to the talk page. If someone puts a reference you don't like, counter it by Adding a new reference. Eagle talk 19:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit this article in any other way than to preserve added references, unless they are agreed to be removed on this talk page. Eagle talk 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CITE for infomation on "good" and "bad" sources, along with how to properly format citations. Eagle talk 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A month ago, I thought this article would be deleted on the grounds that the page itself was founded on vandalism itself. Why are we still having this discussion? The fact of the matter is somebody should delete this page immediately. It distorts the reality of true anti-Canadianism and provides a fallacious view of anti-Canadianism itself. The entire article itself needs citing.

For example, "Many, like Conrad Black or David Frum have chosen to leave the country feeling that Canada is unsalvageable."

"In 2006, right-wing American strategist Paul Weyrich said Canadians are "so liberal and hedonistic" that they have a philosophy of "cultural Marxism"."

"Dislike for Canada may rise for two reasons: a general dislike for "the West", in which Canada is included, or a specific objection to policies and attitudes of Canada and Canadians. The latter type is generally limited to the few countries who have a history of important disputes with Canada." Canadia 7:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely incredible. No matter how many times something is explained to you, you regress back to your old arguments which have no known basis in Wikipedia policy, precedent, or practice. Yes, you requested deletion. Why are we still having this argument? Because you are not the owner of Wikipedia. We do not take marching orders from you and we may not agree with everything you say. Or any of it. You have way too high an opinion of yourself. You say "The fact of the matter is somebody should delete this page immediately." Um, what "facts" are you speaking of? Can you point out how this fits the Criteria for speedy deletion? It's not pure vandalism because a few people have made good edits to it; its nothing like the original version which you insist is vandalism. What you're referring to is not fact but truthiness. And really, the only thing wrong with those quotes is that they offend your sensibilities. "Many, like Conrad Black or David Frum have chosen to leave the country feeling that Canada is unsalvageable." Inaccurate how? "In 2006, right-wing American strategist Paul Weyrich said Canadians are "so liberal and hedonistic" that they have a philosophy of "cultural Marxism"." Inaccurate how? "Dislike for Canada may rise for two reasons: a general dislike for "the West", in which Canada is included, or a specific objection to policies and attitudes of Canada and Canadians. The latter type is generally limited to the few countries who have a history of important disputes with Canada." Inaccurate how? I know you like to live in a fantasy world where everyone loves Canada and thinks of it as a peacekeeping nation, but in reality the common view of Canadians as peacekeepers went down the drain in the early 1990s when Canadian soldiers in Yugoslavia committed those human rights abuses. If you went to the Middle East, I bet some of them would dislike Canada as part of the "West". I advise you to read through all of the talk page, note the many opinions besides mine (1) in favour of keeping this article and (2) convinced another AfD would be pointless, and then go back to doing something constructive, presuming you have ever done anything constructive on Wikipedia, ever. (I noticed on your talk page, under the heading "Please stop" that you have a history of this sort of thing). Oh, and on I final note, I know I'm patriotic enough that I don't need to know your opinion on whether I'm anti-Canadian; those personal attacks have never had any affect on me no matter how many times you repeat them. I also support abolishing the monarchy. I view that as an essentially patriotic standpoint as well. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

- Once again, CanadianCaesar, you have shown what as asinine person you. Your exgesis made absolutely no sense and lacked any iota of a logical syllogism. You say that I am not the owner of Wikipedia, yet you go on to say that, "We do not take marching orders from you and we may not agree with everything you say. Or any of it. You have way too high an opinion of yourself." So how am I "incredible" when I "regress back to my old argument?" You're not the owner of Wikipedia, so I take it that I don't need to take "marching orders" from you either. Really, what good is it being a lawyer if you can't even use logical deduction? The fact of the matter is (Just for the record, it's a figure of speech), half of the article is based on utter opinion, biases and stereotypes.

Secondly, your reference to my three examples are just nuts. For the record, let's see those three "facts" again:

"Many, like Conrad Black or David Frum have chosen to leave the country feeling that Canada is unsalvageable."

"In 2006, right-wing American strategist Paul Weyrich said Canadians are "so liberal and hedonistic" that they have a philosophy of "cultural Marxism"."

I'd like to know which one of these "facts" are actually facts? If the first one is (as you say) is accurate, then I guess it's also safe to say (for example) that Canada is the best country in the world because its been ranked 10 times by the UN HDI Index. I guess it's safe to say that (for example) America sucks because many liberals in America feel that America is "unsalvageable." I guess it's also safe to say that most Mexicans feel Mexico is "unsalvageable" because many Mexicans have moved to America. And, finally, I guess it's also safe to say that most Germans are Nazis because Hitler was Austrian-German. The truth is, none of the statements are true, and even if they were, they would have no proof to corroborate it. Similarily, where is the proof that "Conrad Black" or "David Frum" feels that Canada is unsalvageable. They may have given up their Canadian citizenship, but where is the proof that both men feel that Canada is "unsalvageable?" And what does "unsalvageable" refer to? Does it refer to Canada's policy? It's politics? Or it's people? The same idea can be used for the second statement. "Cultural marxism?" Please. Are you this myopic that you can't even see two meters in front of you? Canada is a parliamentary and socially democratic country. You mention that other nations dislike Canada as a "Western" nation. However, cultural marxism states that the government (taking its cue from Marxism) controls cultural facets of the society, by regulating the media and spewing forth propaganda. What country doesn't do that? Liberals in America have hardly a voice in politics, just as much as conservatives in Canada have hardly a voice in politics (Actually, that's not true. The current Prime Minister of Canada is conservative). And if Weyrich is going to attack Canada as culturally marxist, then he should also attack the policies of Great Britain, the Baltic countries and Japan (just to name a few) as these countries are much more socially progressive than we are. Need I remind you that most buses and streets in England are monitored by CCTV cameras?

And finally, I don't need this lecture on the Wikipedia Criteria deletion or any of that utter crap. What is your point in trying to tell me that what I'm saying does not cut the mustard for the Wikipedia Deletion Criterion? Again, I reiterate. This site was founded on vandalism, as you clearly state that this page was made by a person who copied and pasted the anti-American page. If you are so alacritious and perspicacious in your attempts to make Wikipedia a non-biased and informative source, what justifies the creation of this page? After all, it was founded by a person who thought that it would be a "practical joke". I've noticed that you've never really addressed me directly on this issue, so I'm just curious as to why you can't answer this question. If your going to lecture me on the etqiuette of Wikipedia, then you need to look in the mirror and see the double standards that you are using. Wake up and smell the coffee. Stop acting like an administrator on Wikipedia, because (frankly) as far as I am concerned, your not. This argument is a waste of my and (and, I'm presuming) your time too.

P.S.

I have never supported the monarch crown and never will. I don't know why it's there on my homepage, but I'm going to delete it. "Immediately." Canadia, 6:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. You think the statements have to be true. They don't. What has to be true is that these things were stated. This isn't an essay designed to show Canada sucks. This is an article designed to show what anti-Canadianism looks like. What's "incredible" (not incredible in a good way, but incredible meaning astounding) is that you can't grasp that this "site" (it's actually an article- Wikipedia is a website) isn't doomed for deletion just because the first version was weird. See Xenu for a featured article that started out as a weird copy and paste. The article doesn't belong to the creator and we don't have to justify the creation- the article has been changed and I justify its existence because I feel anti-Canadianism is notable- a real discussion involving important albeit stupid people, referenced in fiction such as Blame Canada. Finally, as for me not being an adminstrator because you don't think I'm one, well, I am an administrator, I can delete pages (and have deleted hundreds of them), and I can protect pages. And yes this is a waste of my time. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I never implied or said the statements had to be true. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that for the statements to be true, they need to be corroborated by a verifiable source. I also like your second point where you say that this article isn't designed as a Canada sucks page. Well, not exactly. How can people get the impression that Canada doesn't suck when people read statements like, "Canada is unsalvageable" and "If Canada were to break into pieces, America would pick up the parts." I understand that the main purpose is to show what anti-Canadianism looks like and, in the process, is supposed to show the truth about Canada. The problem is that people don't exactly see that message and therefore have a negative and, more importantly, distorted view of Canada. I fail to see how the comments of three American Conservative commentators and one French philosopher (who, by the way, wasn't even referring to Canada, as "Canada" was only comprised of New France and Acadia at the time) reflect true anti-Canadianism. Even you feel that albiet ant-Canadiasm is "notable," not everybody feels the same way as you (and I justify this statement on the grounds that everybody in Wikipedia is entitled to their own opinion) and most of the people you are debating with are "idiots," (such as the person who referenced the fiction "Blame Canada"), so these "people" lose their credibility when they tread on the subject of anti-Canadianism. If you really want to end this useless and puerile argument, then delete this page. Again, it's an absolute waste of my time. Canadia 9:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone reading this cannot help but feel that Canada sucks, then that person has some really serious issues regarding independent thinking. The fact is, Wikipedia has many articles that go over criticisms things receive- but people reading over this stuff do not have to believe everything they read. I've always had some fear that the age of independent thinking is coming to a close, and if you're going to argue that information should now be destroyed because there's a real fear that the masses will believe that stuff is frightening. And really, you say it doesn't reflect real anti-Canadian. Then please, by all means add real anti-Canadian discussion to the article. Your final statement, "If you really want to end this useless and puerile argument, then delete this page," says that you are unwilling to compromise and must absolutely have your way. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how anybody who reads this article would not get a warped and distorted view of Canada. Have you read the article yourself? According to the article, Canada is a "few acres of snow" that is "culturally marxist," "unsalvageable" and "not a real country." How can anybody not be swayed by this crap? As I have strenuously and vociferously maintaned, most of the stereotypes of Canada are utter biases. (See above) I'm not trying to dampen the independent thinking that Wikipedia subscribes to. I know that Wikipedia is a diaphanous source of information where articles can be presented in the way that people believe it should. If you think that the creation of the an "anti-Canadian" page is an example of "independent thinking," then for it. But you need to understand that for every viewpoint, there is a counterbalance viewpoint. Just because you believe that this article warrants a creation doesn't give you legitimate grounds to change and edit what you feel is felicitious. (Same goes for me) My proposal is this: lock the article down tentatively and get some constructive dialogue going. As far as I'm concerned, this arguing is a waste of my time and is tempered by my going to revert the article back to what I think is the right revision. Canadia 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article say Canada is "unsalvageable" and "not a real country"? Again, it says that people have said these things. Of course these are biases. That's what the article is about. And yes, I have read the article. I'm not swayed by it because I know these are just other people's opinions. It doesn't give any view of Canada, it gives a view of anti-Canadianism. It's offensive by nature, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it. It's always about what you think is the right revision. You, you, you. If you want balance try adding to the article instead of deleting things mercilessly. How can anyone feel bold enough to expand and reference it when you're destroying it every day? Something there now won't be there tomorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, we see the utter inanity and biasness that permeates your argument. Who are you to tell me not to delete things mercilessly? Aren't you doing EXACTLY the same thing? Again, pot calling the kettle black. You can't accuse me of doing something you yourself is commensurately guilty of. "Where does the article say Canada is "unsalvageable?" Right under "Views from the right" when somebody gratuitously put Conrad Black and David Frum as "believing Canada is unsavlageable." Even as you admit, these are biases. And as we know, biases have absolutely no place in Wikipedia because it's a source of information that is supposed to present information neutrally and fairly. Your argument to tell me to try to "balance the article by adding to it" is also ridiculous. Since when did you get this idea that I agreed with any of the original stuff that was put on the article? You say that I always change the article to what I think "is the right revision," yet you try to ask me to add to the article that reflects your opinion. Go figure. Canadia 8:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion isn't reflected here, as I've made abundantly clear when I called these people idiots. The fact is, if Wikipedia is not comprehensive enough to reflect all sides of an argument, even the ugly sides, then that is not NPOV. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok lets not forget WP:CIVIL. Also, lets get some citations as per WP:ITE for the disputed content. Please put the citation both in the article and here on the talk page.Eagle talk 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lock the article

Can someone please lock the article down for a specific period of time please? It would be greatly appreciated. Canadia 8:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok...

Canadia: If you believe that only one side of Anti-Conadianism is show here... why don't you find some sources about some of the other sides of Anti-Canadianism. Put the citations in a section on this talk page. (prevent revert) Eagle talk

CanadianCaesar: Can you find sources to back up what exists in that article right now? Eagle talk

What makes my version wrong and Caesar's version right? Canadia 1:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Right" or "Wrong" version. I am challenging both of you to find sources that support the various arguments in the article. Things in this article need to be sourced as per WP:V.

Please note I have not edited this article in any way, shape or form. Also I have challenged both of you equally. Eagle talk 04:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Eagle you are missing the point. The problem is that I have my version of an anti-Canadianism article and Caesar has his own version of an anti-Canadianism article. (which is the original version). The problem arises when we both start to correct and revert each other's article. Canadia, 1:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The version I have been reverting to was not the original version, this was [5]. At any rate, I have added references, and I agree with the point made above that removal of references should be considered vandalism. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, like Eagle, your missing the point. What makes you think your revision is any better than mine? Canadia, 9:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Known Citations

Just becuase a citation is here does not mean it is valid per WP:CITE(style guide) and WP:VERIFY(policy) This is just a location to put known citations. Disscussion about inclusion into the article can then start. Eagle talk 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

^ Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, CTV.ca, 14 December 2005; Susan Riley, "Harper's suspect evolution", 16 December 2005, A18.

Citation was copied from #References above.Eagle talk 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also in above section is a message from a third party... I will put it here as well.

The reference should be added back again. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ----Recopied by Eagle talk 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Current version

Having watched this intermittently, I must say with CC's recent addition of sources I think it would be hard to accept continual reverts to the shorter version preferred by Canadia (editing as anon). I think the page as it stands now should be the one we move forward with. Marskell 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, CC's version is full of questionable information and biases. Even if his version was "correct" it would be full of biases and stereotypes. Canadia 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

His version is now sourced. We need to trim a bit of ORish wording but otherwise it's fine. Marskell 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright his version is sourced. However, I do think that certain parts do need to be trimmed down. Canadia 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is looking good. Continue adding sources... and fix the wording. Whatever you do don't remove any of the sources. Thankyou, and I am glad to see progress being made. Eagle talk 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives