Talk:Parti Québécois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Old discussion

This article is clearly not NPOV. Although this sentence about Jacques Rose is true, this it is absolutely not relevant, this is anecdoctic. See this extract from a journalist from the Gazette (not suspect of sympathy to the PQ) http://www.vigile.net/ds-michaud/docs/01-12-8-macpherson.html "Lévesque was appalled. It was his worst nightmare about the Parti Québécois come true. He had wept that night in 1970 when he heard that Pierre Laporte's body had been found; he had absolutely no sympathy for the sentimental ovation for those convicted for his kidnapping and murder." This is an event taken out of context and it implies that all members of Parti Québécois are in favour of violent action.

Can someone well informed read this article to verify NPOV ?

As someone who read up over the whole Quebec independence thing a while ago, I can say this article is definately not NPOV.

As someone who is still reading on this and has lived through much of the events, I also agree. On the other hand, let's be positive about this! Given the intense passion generated over these political debates I have the impression this is about as neutral as we can ever get. There will always be somebody coming in to try and paint the PQ black, dredging up every possible negative thing about it while others will always come in to try and whitewash it completely. As things stand today most of the facts are in, even if the presentation is not as balanced as I would hope, and there are many declarations given without context. Sure the article would be more neutral if you removed the adjectives and the superlatives. Sure, the article would be richer with paragraphs establishing context for all those controversies. But doing these things would mean moving around in a battlefield where snipers are still very active and it would also entail doubling or quadrupling the size of the article. Right now I don't have an armored suit in my wardrobe. Good luck you all, cause you sure need it. 2003-12-09, 13:41 ---

I think adding the sentence about Jacques Rose's standing ovation, without the slightest explanation, was an inappropriate and subjective move. Aside from its evident subjectivity, I also doubt its relevancy in an article about a political party. (Should we mention everyone else who received an ovation or was booed during a convetion?) Tremblay 20:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note the following:

  • (cur) (last) . . 03:01, 6 Dec 2003 . . Tremblay (Following general concensus, removing bias-by-content)

What general concensus? I have reinstated this important information and added corollary information relative to extremist members of the party. Angelique 18:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on the insertion of an anecdote on a standing ovation on November 17, then more voices supported the removal of that mention here. Three weeks later, seeing as there was no dissent, I removed it.. That's general consensus.
Besides, you're being inconsistent. You proclaim that giving background information (Quebec's majoritarily francophone population, safeguarding the culture in North America, etc) on the nature and necessity of a party like the PQ in Quebec is "not relevant to the article". Yet you think something as anecdotic and irrelevant as a standing ovation is? Tremblay 22:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The PQ is not entirely a social democratic party. The last vestiges of the fallangist Union Nationale were absorbed into the Parti Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard was right-of-centre, and Bernard Landry was the successor to Bouchard.

Falangist? Falangist? ...wait, I'll read this again. ...falangist? Are we speaking of the falangists I'm thinking of? One does not make that kind of statement without weighing their words. I-am-no-fan, NO FAN of the pre-1960 Union Nationale: it was corrupted, conservative, counter-laicist, arrogant, hostile to labor unions and proponent of an old nationalism without independence. But in no way was it falangist before the death of Duplessis, or after. And, speaking of after, the party was much more honorable under the govern of Mr. Daniel Johnson Sr., himself an Irish-Quebecois (that's some falangist for ya'). Absorbed, you say? There was no formal fusion of the UN and the PQ. Furthermore, as some of the highest members, the followers have indubitably switched alleigance to both parties. Robert Bourassa's Liberals were closer to some of the weak nationalists of the federalist-nationalist faction of the UN.
Honourable? Mr. Johnson was constantly compared Mr. Lévèsque to Fidel Castro and wasn't even capable of winning a fair election (Montreal had 2/5 of Quebec's population and 1/5 of the MNA seats in 1966), having lost the popular vote by 7 points (In a U.S. Presidential election, 7 points would mean a landslide victory in the Electoral College, in Quebec, it meant losing the National Assembly by 6 seats.). If you want to put honourable and Union Nationale in the same sentence together, it had better include the words "Gilbert Layton" and "leaving the party when he realised that opposing Liberal corruption under Godbout did not justify supporting a far-right movement.") That being said, isn't ideology that mixes ultra-conservatism with Roman Catholicism inherently falangist? I mean, Duplessis was a guy who went beyond opposing World War 2 on pacificist to being openly sympathetic to Hitler and to Pétain (He allowed Vichy collaborators to escape execution in Quebec and was extremely hostile to many of the groups that Hitler slaughtered en masse, including Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and radical leftists.). He used both armed thugs and Catholic priests to muzzle free speech in Quebec in a way that it has never before and never since been muzzled in any Canadian jurisdiction.
The conservative and ultramontane political clique of Duplessis inherited power from the reactionary clique which collaborated with the imperialist and anti-catholic businessmen who established a British Federal Dominion in Canada in 1867. In other words, the retarded bunch of short-sighted narrow-minded Quebec capitalists who collaborated to the system of British Indirect Rule over the people Quebec from the 1840 Union Act up until now did everything they could, and continue to do everything they can to block the liberal/progressive movement that pushes for the creation of a free, democratic, secular, and egalitarian Republic of Quebec (aka Republic of Lower Canada, Republic of Laurentia).
One has to avoid making people they know nothing about guilty by association. Duplessis's blind catholicism made him (and others) follow all the reactionary ideologies of his time. The catholic church, made almighty and powerful with the Quebec Act, had an index of banned books, banned movies until the 1960s. To have a more neutral view of nazi collaboration in Canada, I recommend reading up on the open anti-semitism of Prime Minister of Canada Mckenzie King who refused to let Jewish refugees enter Canada during WWII http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0020181
As of Lucien Bouchard, a long debate is still going on about this, but it was under his government that, for example, the progressive public daycare system was instituted and he kept alive the major aspects of Jean Lesage and René Lévesque's Welfare State, built by four decades of progressive work. And the act of reducing a great deficit left by the Liberals so the younger generations won't have to starve to pay the bills is in a way not that big a treason to social democracy. When one compares to Jean Charest's right-wing ... demolition derby of the present government, when one compares Mr. Bouchard to the *real* right Quebecers forgot about, the one the left forgot to defend the people against, one sees how much Bouchard wasn't all that bad. --Liberlogos 20:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You win. But when did I ever put Bouchard even further to the right than Charest? It's true, however, Tories and former Tories are very influential in every relevant party in Quebec, save, of course, the UFP.

The PQ is social democratic but like many social democratic parties it should not be described simply as "left wing". Moderate left or centre-left is fine but if it were "left wing" there would be no UFP. AndyL

Left and right are too narrow an idea to really encompass the true spectrum of politics. Ideology mixes with practicality and political convienance. No party is truly left or right while they are in power or within reach of power.Manic-pedant 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'?

(beginning of paragraph under History) Critics, both francophone and anglophone, have however criticized Bill 101 for restraining citizens' linguistic school choice, as if forbids immigrants and Quebeckers of French descent from attending English-language school.

Was 'as if forbids' supposed to be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'? Either could easily have an almost invisible typo resulting in the current language, but the two have very different meanings. Scott 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Campaign Slogan?

I'm not quite sure as to what the PQ's campaign slogan is in the current election. I put OUI, because that is what's at the bottom of all of their campaign signs. However, at the same time, their website (as well as the posters themselves) seem to suggest that their slogan is Reconstruisons _________ (Notre Région/Un Québec en Sante/Un Québec Plus Instruit/Un Québec Plus Vert).

Could someone shed some light on which of these is their actual slogan for this election? Or is a mixture of the two? SimFan10076 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found out, according to Radio-Canada, the slogan is actually «Reconstruisons notre Québec» SimFan10076 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

"As the letter Q is relatively rarely used on an everyday basis..."

This may be true in English, but not in French. "Qui," "quoi," "quand," and "quel" are the French words for "who," "what," "when," and "which."

JohnnyB 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... Funny. I thought this was the english wiki... --Dez26 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the text said the Q logo is distinctive because the letter isn't used in a regular basis. That isn't true in French. JohnnyB 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know it's too late to answer, but to clear up. The party's official name in French remains the same in English. No one speaks of "Quebecker Party" in English, only the "Parti Québécois". Pieuvre 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Party Policy

Where is such a section? Why isn't it in this article? It would seem the most relevant place. I hope someone can lead me to a Wikipedia link on that. Toddsschneider 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo Parti Québécois.svg

Image:Logo Parti Québécois.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annihilation of Canada?

The introduction says that the party supports Quebec separation and "annihilation" of Canada. That doesn't sound right and looks like some kind of subliminal message. I guess Canada would not exist as it currently does, but I think annihilation is a little strong, and is being used purposefully here to represent a POV. Just wanted to hear comments before trying to edit it. Paxuniv (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird. "Total annihilation," actually. Clearly represents a POV. Adam (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internal crisis in 1984

The party was re-elected in the 1981 election, but in November 1984 it experienced the most severe internal crisis of its existence. The incident resulted in the resignation of Premier René Lévesque. In September 1985, the party leadership election chose Pierre Marc Johnson as his successor.

What kind of crisis was it? I think that it's not properly explained in the article. J-C V (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)