User talk:JonathanBouthillier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have nominated Rodney K Moore for deletion. You may wish to participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney K Moore. Ground Zero | t 04:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. {{hangon}} isn't valid for the AFD process. If you disagree with the nominator and believe that the article should be kept, please participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney K Moore. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan, please review Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Your accusations of bias against Quebecers, sovereigntists and the Parti Quebecois have no basis in anything that has been written about the Rodney Moore article by me or anyone else so far. The only concern that we have here is about maintaining the quality and standards of Wikipedia. There are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia about Quebec sovereigntism, the various sovereigntist movements, and the important members of those movements as there should be in an encyclopedia. I have created some of these articles myself. (See the articles on the Union Populaire and the Parti indépendantiste, which I created when I was using the name User:Kevintoronto. I think that you will find that there is no anti-Quebec or anti-sovereigntist bias there.) The question we are debating is whether Rodney K Moore merits an article, and only that. Making baseless accusations of bias do not further your cause. Please treat other Wikipedians with respect. Thank you. Ground Zero | t '
The question should be,, why are individuals like Rodney Moore the porn guru listed, yet people who are renown in their field such as sociologist and author, Stéphane Kelly as well as author and political scientist Pierre Martin are not? Rodney K Moore is active in the sovereigntist movement, is one of the founding members of Action Cadienne, and is a hyperpolyglot. I am a student of linguistics at Concordia University and when someone meets someone who is as multilingual as Mr Moore, you know right away that you are meeting someone notable. He is not simply "someone who knows a few languages" as one of the Wikipedians has erroneously suggested.
There is also the language issue. I am responsible for writting the overwhelming lion's share of this article. While there have been some interviews of Mr Moore, in both French and English, I am interested in the English interviews first. This takes time and effort. I plan on also trying to extend the articles on Pierre Martin and Stéphane Kelly. Who are widely known and respected in francophone Québec, but considered nobody's in the Rest of Canada. I myself, as an anglophile bilingual Quebecer and a student of linguistics am shocked at the sheer lack of information regarding individuals such as Stéphane Kelly and Pierre Martin. It goes to show that in RoC, noone is aware at all, what goes on in Québec. Furthermore, someone who might be considered "notable" in one culture, or field of study, might not be considered "notable" in others. So no I will not make an apology for my suggesting there is a bias. If obscure porn stars, song lyrics, and cartoon episodes warrant an article, but "notables" from legitimate academic fields and social movements are missing then there is obviously something wrong. More than half of those proposing deletion of this article were from English Canada and I don't feel that is coincidence. Being a federalist Acadian, I know legitimate biases when I see them. Whether from pure lain Québécois or from English Canadians, when it comes to the issue of Québec most are far from neutral. This is why I feel that if anyone is to propose deletion, or to delete this article, it should be done by someone who has no bias. If an article on Pierre Elliot Trudeau was proposed for deletion by an Albertan Conservative or by a Québec sovereigntist it would be painfully obvious. The fact that this individual, Rodney K Moore is involved with both Le Mouvement Montréal français(also no article on group) and the Parti Québécois might trigger an Anglo-Canadian to deem this article "vanity". I feel Wikipedians who are English Canadian should, to avoid any possible hint of bias, remove themselves from the deletion process. JonathanBouthillier
Jonathan, here is a list of articles about Quebec or Quebecers that I have created:
- Jérôme Choquette
- Fabien Roy
- Gilles Caouette
- André-Gilles Fortin
- Camil Samson
- Parti créditiste
- Canadian Traditional Conservative Party
- Les Démocrates
- Parti démocratie chrétienne du Québec
- Parti indépendantiste
- Parti présidentiel
- Union Populaire
Here is the list of articles about Quebec or Quebecers that you have created:
- Rodney K Moore
No articles exist for Stéphane Kelly and Pierre Martin because you haven't created them yet. It is not that they have been deleted. Wikipedia is entirely written by volunteers who work on what interests them. My interests lie, for the most part, in political parties and politicians, including Quebec parties and politicians. I recently researched and significantly expanded the Union Nationale (Quebec) article.
"It goes to show that in RoC, noone is aware at all, what goes on in Québec." If that were the case, how could a Toronto anglophone like me have created all of the articles about Quebec parties and politicians (some of which are fairly obscure) that I have cited above?
"Furthermore, someone who might be considered "notable" in one culture, or field of study, might not be considered "notable" in others." And all you have to do is show that Mr. Moore is notable in his field with citations, and you will be able to make your point. So far, I don't think you have done that. Of course, it is not up to me alone to decide, I have only one vote in the AfD. It will be up to all Wikipedians who decide to participate to determine that.
"More than half of those proposing deletion of this article were from English Canada and I don't feel that is coincidence. Being a federalist Acadian, I know legitimate biases when I see them." The only "evidence" that you have seen is the discussion on the deletion of one article. Is that evidence? no. I have shown that I have an interest in Quebec matters, and am willing to create new articles including articles about sovereigntist movements, but you ignore this and cry out "bias!". What this is really about is that you think there should be an article about one person, and others disagree. You have no basis for claiming bias. By the way, the same day that I nominated this article for deletion, I nominated Citizens For Reform Party, an American "party" that appears to be a one-man on-line discussion forum. Does this make me anti-American?
"The fact that this individual, Rodney K Moore is involved with both Le Mouvement Montréal français(also no article on group) and the Parti Québécois might trigger an Anglo-Canadian to deem this article "vanity"." I nominated this article for deletion -- me -- not anyone else -- and yet I have created articles about minor sovereigntist movements. How can you explain that with your "bias" hypothesis? You can't, of course.
"I feel Wikipedians who are English Canadian should, to avoid any possible hint of bias, remove themselves from the deletion process." You are new to Wikipedia, and are still learning. I understand that. You must understand that no Wikipedian will get away with excluding other Wikipedians on the basis of geography. All Wikipedians are entitled to participate in whatever discussion they choose to. And since I have show no bias against Quebec, Quebecers or Quebec sovereignty movements, as is shown by the content that I have created on these subjects, I will continue to propose deletion of this article until such time as I see evidence that convinces me it should stay. So far, other Wikipedians agree with me. As I have mentioned before, I am prepared to change my mind if the article is improved.
Jonathan, I think it would be a good idea for you to review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which is a guiding principle of interaction here on Wikiepdia. It will help you understand better how we work here. Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I read over the neutrality requirements and came to the conclusion, that perhaps I am not the best person to write this article. After all, I am writting a real scholarly article on him and other notable polyglots for a reputable academic journal on linguistics. Clearly, putting this information on wikipedia is a complete waste of time. I'm not sure that Mr Moore would approve anyway, especially since what I know of him, he is not a fan of the media. Due to his post Katrina experiences. I have little time or patience to debate vague concepts of "notability" with people who couldn't tell someone the first thing about linguistics. I stand by my previous judgement that this article was selected for deletion due to a bias against sovereigntists by English Canadians. Too bad my own articles and research into individuals like Mr Moore aren't yet published. After this experience I plan on keeping scholarly academic information where it really belongs and that's not wikipedia. Concordia University faculty admonish students to avoid wikipedia and to use academic journals, because Wikipedia is not that accurate. I was once opposed to this anti-wikipedia bias among faculty. But I am beginning to see that they might have been right. I am erasing this article, since I am the one who wrote it in the first place. While as a PhD candidate, I am more than aware of the need for proper citations, references, links and so on. However when an article is clearly a work in progress, more time should be given before people come along and try to delete an article. This is one of a few notable cases of polyglotism I had intended to post on Wikipedia, along with my research in JSTOR and other academic journals. However, I will skip the Wikipedia entry. JonathanBouthillier
Your recent edit to Rodney K Moore (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan, I suggested on the afd page that you consider working at Citizendium, and i meant that in all earnest. There is a strong group of linguistic people there, but room for more. Based on what you say above, you will find the working style very congenial--articles can be kept for a long time while they are being constructed, and there is true editorial approval both for articles and for subsequent changes. DGG 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"I stand by my previous judgement that this article was selected for deletion due to a bias against sovereigntists by English Canadians." So in spite of all of the arguments I have provided that show why I am not guilty of bias, and even though you cannot muster any arguments to show that I am guilty of bias, you continue to hold your opinion against me. That is what bias is all about. I don't think you have the makings of an academic. Academics must have reasons behind their positions. Academics consider the available evidence and form opinions based on a logical thought process. Making a baseless accusation and continuing to hold it in the face of contrary evidence is nothing more than schoolyard name-calling. Ground Zero | t 12:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney K Moore
I was a little puzzled by this: "Concordia University faculty admonish students to avoid wikipedia and to use academic journals, because Wikipedia is not that accurate. I was once opposed to this anti-wikipedia bias among faculty. But I am beginning to see that they might have been right."
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you used to support Wikipedia as being accurate, but now that you see that Wikipedia requires reliable sources of information to be cited in all articles, and ruthlessly deletes insufficiently cited information, you think Wikipedia is inaccurate.
This is kind of an odd position for an academic to take, isn't it? -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
