Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec bashing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec bashing[edit]

This is nonsense. Really. It purports to be referenced but every other sentence seems to start with "allegedly". "Quebec bashing" scores about 500 ghits. Guy 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio-Canada, Sunday Sept 24, Les coulisses du pouvoir (weekly political program on federal tv!) starts the show off by saying one of their topics is "Quebec Bashing": http://www.radio-canada.ca/actualite/v2/coulisses_du_pouvoir/ 69.156.25.163 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT: I confirm that host Daniel Lessard states naturally: "[...] But first, Afghanistan and Quebec bashing with minister Maxime Bernier, after this." Then, a voice-off quotes the Jan Wong piece, then mentions the Quebecistan article, then mentions words from Don Cherry. Afterwards, in an interview with minister Bernier, Lessard once again uses naturally the phrase: "Quebec bashing, mister Bernier, (Bernier laughs, knowing what the subject will be) in lack of a better term in French ― The Globe and Mail again this week ― this article that you have read on Dawson, does it irritate you, personally?". Bernier: "shocking" and "no foundations". Lessard enumerates the examples of Wong, Quebecistan and Don Cherry, says that it happens "pretty regularly" and asks, about articles and words such as these: "Is it racism?" Then, Lessard discusses Jean Charest's and other politicians' response to the Wong affair, and any possibility of political recuperation, with Bernard Drainville, chief of the SRC (the network) office in Quebec City. In this exchange, Drainville, contrarily to some like the Globe and Mail editor, comes to the conclusion the politicians acted with moderation ("avec pondération"). One can verify all of this by watching the video available on the webpage linked above. This report is a very pertinent find. --Liberlogos 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is heavily sourced, besides alleged is used only 4 times. Also a reason why it may not have many google hits is because the sources on the internet may be in French. I'm pretty sure that bashing wouldn't appear on a French site. T REXspeak 01:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Quebec bashing" scores 321 000 hits in www.google.ca and 292,000 in www.google.com . And that is a verifiable fact. As I wrote in the article's discussion page, the text needs important work on 1) the quality of English and 2) on making the subject more comprehensive, but the ceaseless bashing on Quebec in the English language media of Canada (especially the written press) is a real social phenomenon. Much has been written on the subject, in both English and French and the current controversy over Jan Wong's Globe & Mail article is making it clear that the issue is still ongoing. -- Mathieugp 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matheiugp, you were already told on the talk page of the article how to check Google properly by using double-quotes. It's 500-650 hits depending on whether you use google.com or google.ca. If you don't include the double-quotes you could be including Quebec bashing the federal government, etc. Deet 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing an advanced search asking for the exact phrase of Quebec bashing alone, we now get 727 hits (www.google.ca) -- Mathieugp 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that's still pretty low. And all this talk about, well it's a popular term in French, well guess what, those hits include ALL LANGUAGES. It's not that popular, and an extra 50 have probably been generated by just us talking about this all over Wikipedia and everyone's talk pages, etc. Deet 02:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is Quebec bashed endlessly in the English-language media? As a former Quebecker living in Toronto, and reading the Globe (can't say I spotted the article that has caused the ruckus), I don't see much in the way of Quebec-bashing ... there's probably more Alberta-bashing an definitely more US-bashing than anything. Was Wong even bashing Quebec? I got the impression she was talking about Francophone society more than the province ... not that I agree with her conclusions. But name the last article in the Globe that caused an issue? That aside, the question is, should the article exist? Is it accurate? Should it have a different name? Should it be merged with something? Just because a noun/verb combination scores high on Google it shouldn't have an article. I don't konw where 321,000 comes from. I just put in "Quebec bashing" (as a phrase) and I only get 501 hits. How did you get 321,000? But I get 2,160,000 hits for "window cleaning", which I note doesn't have an article. Nfitz 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why bashing the mainstream francophone society of Quebec is NOT bashing Quebec itself??? 74% of Quebecers have some French ancestry, 80% are native French speakers, 82% adopted French as their main language in the privacy of their homes and 94% claim to be able to carry a conversation in French. Come one. That's not serious. You are getting 501 hits because you are putting double quotes around Quebec bashing. You are missing all instances where the phrase is not exactly Quebec bashing, but maybe bashing on Quebec or something similar. The default Google search will look for all of the words, so you don't need double quotes. If you do an advanced search and ask for the exact phrase of Quebec bashing alone, you still get 650 hits. -- Mathieugp 03:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • It's entirely different. Quebec is a multi-lingual province; the exampls I have seen seem to be bashing the pur laine themselves - and while the think they are Quebec, this is a very racist belief, and they are not Quebec. Nfitz 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain, with valid arguments, how the fact that Quebec has a multilingual population, something you have to expect in a nation of 7.5 million, changes the fact that when you attack the majority of Quebecers and the political and social institutions of all Quebecers, you are attacking the whole of Quebec? If the majority national group isn't allowed to identify to Quebec, who is? If the old-stock Franco-Quebecers are racist when they identify to Quebec, are old-stock British Canadians racists when they think of themselves as Canadians? I hope you realise how hopelessly wrong you are there seeing racism in the wrong place. -- Mathieugp 00:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking what is the last G&M article having raised issues is not an apt argument, for this article is not named "Quebec bashing in the Globe and Mail newspaper". The last article published in the general press to raise a ruckus was published only a month before ("The Rise of Quebecistan, in the other big Canadian newspaper). You don't see much Quebec bashing? ...read the article. Yes, Wong was bashing Quebec. She referred to the language laws that were passed by the Quebec legislature. "the question is, [...] Is it accurate?" Look at the plethora of references. "That aside, the question is, [...] Should it have a different name? Should it be merged with something?" That is not exactely the question at hand: this is a deletion nomination. Those issues are raised in different fashions. "the question is, should the article exist?" That's the question. The answer is yes. Books (as noted below) and hundreds of articles (as also noted below) have commented and studied the phenomenon. The opinion that it exists is held widely in all political sides in Quebec (see below). --Liberlogos 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Allegedly" has specifically been used to carefully counter criticism of "bias" and deletion nominations. Since the subject is controversial, any mention that says "The phenomenon exists [end of the line]." will get the article into trouble. Now, you're nominating it for the exact opposite reason, which is curious. The fact is that, in the Quebec society, in all political sides, it is widely believed to exist (see "There's a sort of trend." - Denis Coderre, Liberal MP), [1] and the abundance of references makes that argument successfully. Books (Three volumes of The Black Book of English Canada from Normand Lester, L'obsession ethnique from Guy Bouthillier...) and hundreds of articles (see "Bashing Quebec fashionable in anglo media" by Michel David and the dozens more referrenced in the article) have commented and studied the phenomenon. --Liberlogos 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the article being about the allegations, the issue at hand is not whether the phenomenon exists, which is at least an opinion, but if the allegations exist, which is a referenced fact. --Liberlogos 09:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ... if only because the reason given by Guy to have the article deleted is just an unsubstantiated opinion that the article is "nonsense". To others, the article does have meaning and is useful in that it documents what numerous people believe to be a sociological phenomenon. D. Mx.
  • O RLY? I guarantee you that I can find at least as amny sources bashing London as you have here for Quebec. The whole article is a POV fork of Quebec, a criticism section which should never have existed in the first place. Maybe this belongs at Wikitravel, but the term is not in widespread use and the content is hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Guy 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) London is not a nation. 2) When an article does not have the adequate neutral point of view, we fix it, we don't delete it, especially when it references some 60 articles in two languages. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1) The rapid growth of the article and the number of people who have contributed to it seems indicates there is a place for it. 69.159.89.248 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 2) In particular in the case of Jan Wong, Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Jean Charest got involved, and there was a unanimous vote of the Canadian House of Commons. Google numbers aside, we're talking about a major event on the Canadian scene. 69.159.89.248 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3) If there wasn't a Quebec Bashing page, it would be harder to make links between the different events of diffamation linked to the different individuals involved. 69.159.89.248 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • uh hang on, your only supposed to vote once ... how many sockpuppets do you have? Nfitz 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple explanation: he's new. If the intentions had been malignant, he would have signed with different handles. Assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. --Liberlogos 04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, I thought it was argument by argument, not vote by vote. (my provider reassigns me a new IP each time) 69.156.73.134 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know the sex of the poster is male? Nfitz 05:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. I usually try to always use gender-neutral language when referring to users without userpages defining sex. That's a common Wikipedia discussion issue. It slipped this time. Also, in French, the masculine gender can refer to both sexes. You raising this on a deletion debate is funny. --Liberlogos 05:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That we would suddenly have two people 69.159.89.248 and 69.159.89.248 suddenly contributing to the debate, who have never before posted to Wikipedia I find rather funny too. I don't bite the newcomers when they edit the Wacko Jacko article, to note his sexual perversions ... but in my experience, newcomers don't normally jump into deletion discussions! But you are correct, I should assume good faith - and I note that I am in violation of that. Nfitz 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one raising my eyebrows on how many of the commentators here, have never felt it worthy to contibute to Wikipedia before this AFD was issued? Nfitz 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the controversy, right now, dozens, hundreds of Quebecers, and some outside Quebec, are googling "Quebec bashing". As I am writing this, the googlesearch has the Wikipedia article in question in 7th place on the first result page and the one from the French-language Wikipédia in 6th place on the first result page. Many of the people finding this page have never contributed to Wikipedia. This article has been featured on Vigile.net, a popular website with a majority of readers that have never contributed to Wikipedia (and many may not know about it). This is probably a big part of the explanation. Also, as noted below, this is an issue that "burns many" people and therefor an attempt to erase this in a sphere where it is less well-known, the English-speaking world (which could be seen by them as historical revisionism), will draw more people in trying to avoid it. --Liberlogos 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regions make fun of and denigrate other regions. Quebec is not anything special in this regard. For example, in the U.S., the South is called racist and backward, the West Coast liberal, The Plain States simple, New England/Upper East Coast snobby and any agricultural region is filled with racists, zoophiles, homophobes and pedophile preachers. If the article is kept, then I think that all of the references should be in English except for unique content that is both necessary for the article and unavailable in English. The vast majority of contributors cannot read French and are forced to rely other users and automatic translators, which are not very accurate, to verify the references. -- Kjkolb 08:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quebec IS NOT special in this regards - there are a group of people within Quebec, that believe they are the centre of the universe, but reality is, that the English-language media isn't generally that interested in Quebec, and is far more likely to be picking on the United States. However I don't see anything wrong with having French references - enough English-speaking people have understanding of French to confirm the validity of the references. Nfitz 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know that systematic denigration of entire national groups, gender groups, religious groups etc, for political reason is common. Each case has for certain been the subject of many books and doctoral thesises. Using available material, we are for sure able to write something good, neutral, encyclopedic on these subjects. Various books have already been written (some translated to English) in reaction to the constant flow of disinformation on Quebec and it is currently exploding in the news RIGHT NOW. the Prime Minister of Canada wrote a letter to the Globe & Mail to ask them to apologize for publishing an article. This is a first in the history of Canada and that alone would deserve an article! I believe the Quebec bashing article can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. It's only a question of rephrasing sentences where the "narrator" appears to take sides. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that it was fine to use foreign language references when the content could not be found in English and was necessary for the article. I am a habitual qualifier. I like my statements to be correct in all foreseeable situations. ;-)
  • I might be in favor of deleting some of the less notable articles that you mention (flat earthers, Moon landing hoax accusations (could be briefly mentioned in Moon landing article), thetans & engrams (maybe deletion, but merging into another article might be a better solution), Saddam & al Qaeda (could be briefly mentioned in respective articles)), but I would have to check them out first. However, your examples of articles on things that are false or do not exist is not relevant to the reasoning that I gave, which is that bashing between regions is not notable, specifically, not notable enough for its own article. Mentioning that there is perceived Quebec bashing in the article on Quebec would be be more appropriate, in my opinion. A better example article would be a whole article about the bashing of a region by the rest of the country. The most well known case of regional bashing that I am aware of is the Southern United States vs. the rest of the U.S., but there is not an article about it as far as I can find. If the bashing of Quebec is so severe or is perceived to be so severe by Quebec residents as to warrant its own article, why is the subject not widely discussed in English? 8% of the population in Quebec speaks English and many people are multilingual. Also, there are many English speakers outside Quebec that should be writing about it if it is such a big issue. Finally, how is Quebec special in regards to regional bashing, as you say? -- Kjkolb 10:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you are not an authority in deciding if topic A is special enough or not special enough to enter Wikipedia. If that is the core of your argument, I suggest you find a better one because it is not valid. Second, yes the issue is badly, badly covered in the very English media doing the bashing, but there are nevertheless some good articles on it by (off the top of my head) Ray Conlogue in the Globe & Mail and Josée Legault in the Montreal Gazette. Again, the issue involves a long series of events over a period of 10 years, including court cases and various books written. The article needs to better details those events. Right now, it gives a short, not very clear description of the phenomenon then goes on to detail some of the reactions in right away. The article is worth keeping in that it can easily improve on its weaknesses. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I am an authority on what is special enough to have an article, as is any experienced Wikipedian. This is what we decide on AfD - whether things are notable enough to have an article, whether it is original research, whether it is hopelessly NNPOV, whether it is a hoax and various other decisions. I wrote a further reply to your comments, but I do not think continuing the discussion would be useful for either of us and that we should just agree to disagree. -- Kjkolb 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought that there is some value in this article, and I have tried to improve it in constructive ways, but the primary author has reverted virtually everything I have done, and seems to be on some kind of mission of original research here, rather than writing a collaborative article. This would be less frustrating, but with his poor English, some of his reversions have restored words that were not used in the correct form (with the primary author citing the dictionary to justify his misuse of the English language). The author also seems to have a lot of bias, being under the mistaken belief that the Canadian English media have some kind of particular axe to grind with Quebec, which is a very naive and insular understanding of how Canada works, for if they had spent any time in TROC they would see that the media tends to pick on everyone, with Quebec being less of a target than say Alberta or in particular The United States. While I think there may be some validity in having an article here, or perhaps somewhere more neutral like Criticism of Quebec. Nfitz 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Move to Criticism of Quebec or Perceptions of Quebec-bashing or at last Quebec-bashing and rewrite to remove bias, and trivial examples. Nfitz 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have a bias and I do not think all the examples were illegitimate criticism. You have shown bad faith in your comments about the legibility of the text. You have contested "high racism" because you somehow think high can't describe something high. This is where I used the dictionnary. Are you sure you're not the non-native English speaker with a shaky mastery of the language? The article isn't in Chinese, by God, and I will defend my English of which I am proud. You have tried to remove whole pertinent sections of notorious events and I have acted in what I believed to be the interests of Wikipedia. I have tried to make this collaborative. I have left what I could leave of your edits and have addressed every single point of linguistics you have raised. One of the main refuters here, Mathieugp, has lived IN Alberta, English Canada; he know what he's talking about, and I'm a strong anglophile, who went to an English-language university, that knows the English-speaking world. --Liberlogos 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I have shown bad faith, but no assuming you don't have bias - I'm sorry, I should have phrased that differently. But "high racism"? After a lifetime of speaking English, I have never encountered this term - therefore the use of it in an article is not going to explain what it means. I'm really unsure what you mean by high racism ... does this mean racism that is more pure than other forms of racism? Does this mean racism brought about from upon high? Does this mean "highly racist"? I honestly don't understand what is meant by this term, and I'm sure not a lot of others do either. Nfitz 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to temper my words and say that it seemed you could be of bad faith by for example nitpicking "high", but it's quite possible that they were good faith arguments. --Liberlogos 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb, and it's too vague a topic. Only 500 - 650 ghits depending on whether you use google.com or google.ca. What's next? Jack Layton bashing, U.S. automakers bashing, ... Deet 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michel David, respected Le Devoir journalist: "Of course, Quebec-bashing is nothing new for the anglophone press, but it is so widespread these days that one wonders if it hasn't become a natural and acceptable expression of Canadian patriotism.", from article "Bashing Quebec fashionable in anglo media". Denis Coderre, Liberal MP: "There's a sort of trend." Normand Lester, renown journalist: " 'Canada loves you!' was shouted to Quebecers on the eve of the referendum of 1995... The close result of the consultation will get the better of the passion as sudden as intrusive that showed us English Canada; il will even set off against [Quebecers] a frenzy of verbal violence and hate like we had not seen for a long time. [...] So, English Canada is once again at war with Quebec. Since the referendum, it dreams of a new Battle of the Plains of Abraham, it dreams of ending things with Quebec." See also all the quotes in the article AND the Further Reading section. --Liberlogos 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem that widespread - when I asked when the last article in the Globe was (rather than an editorial from someone who isn't taken that seriously), the answer was an article in the Facist Post over a month ago - as if anyone takes that newspaper seriously!! :-) Nfitz 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. The article is about the allegations. The existence of *wide* cross-ideology *allegations* is *referenced* *verifiable* fact. The reader judges on the actual existence of the phenomenon after examination of the argument made by them. I noted above numerous examples of articles about allegations, some proved to be patently false. --Liberlogos 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been a hot-button topic in Quebec for over 10 years. I understand the concept makes some people cringe, but the its removal from the English edition of WP would be in itself an act of historical revisionism. In view of this on-going debate, I'm pulling the current version and I will translate it into French, ASAP. Bouchecl 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the problem is, the phrase "Quebec bashing" is virtually unknown in English. As a phrase, it seems to be a French term, rather than an English term. So this might be an appropriate place for such an article in the French Wikipedia where this was merely a stub ... but if nothing else it needs to have a different name in English. And a different bent, as there is a perception in Quebec that everyone is picking on them ... which isn't really observable elsewhere. Nfitz 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it should be made clear in the article that 1) it is a subtype of Francophobia, 2) it is not the norm in English Canada. As a Quebecois, I have encountered Quebec Bashing when I lived in the US or other provinces, but of course, it was coming from a minority of people. 132.212.92.162 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Necessary topic for canadians, with the latest incident it became north americanly known and, I would say, world known. Maybe the title doesn't represent this very well but the subject is really important. Lincher 20:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I do not understand the arguments going against this page. "Quebec bashing" is an existing thread in some English-language media, just as France-bashing has existed in some British tabloids, especially at times of intense criticism of Europe. (unsigned comment by User:Clio Corteis)
  • Distinguishing "Francophone society" and Quebec is ridiculous - Quebec's official language is French, just as the language of the USA is English, and ethnic diversity in origins in both societies would not render in any way pertinent a similar distinction between "English-speaking society" and the USA as two very distinct bodies. It would rightly seem nonsense to say criticizing the "English-speaking society" of the USA is not criticizing the USA.
  • The real issue is the manner of criticism, not the proportional space it takes in the Canadian media. The criticism described as "Quebec bashing" is generally gratuitous and prejudiced, attempting to foster a general contempt of Quebec because it is different and French-speaking.
  • The prejudiced character is the reason why both Prime ministers Harper of Canada and Charest of Quebec have asked the Globe & Mail, by letter, to express regret at the prejudiced article by Jan Wong. The Globe has refused and tried to drown the issue, on which other Toronto newspapers have strangely remained silent. The Globe & Mail cannot be dismissed as unimportant, as far as English-Canadian media go. As for the National Post, whether subjectively one takes it seriously or not should not be part of the argument. What matters is that "Quebec bashing" describes a phenomenon that does exist in the Toronto newspapers and often characterises the work of their Quebec correspondents ! Especially nowadays, after the departur of Graham Fraser and Ray Conlogue.
  • See the latest column by Chantal Hebert in the Toronto Star - she is not their Quebec correspondent by the way, and is not biased against Quebec, but usually avoids commenting on Quebec bashing, as she confesses, but this time was revolted by the silence surrounding what the Globe & Mail has called "a minor uproar" when in fact the Canadian House of Commons has condemned the prejudiced reporting only last week.
  • This silence in itself warrants the article : many are unaware of the phenomenon because other English-Canadian media neglect or avoid reporting on the debate these "Quebec bashing" incidents stir, even when they are at the core of a House of Commons motion.
  • Why shouldn't a documented bias that infects many Toronto media not warrant an article ? Readers will make their own opinion when reading the article, its existence will simply make the facts accessible and discussion possible. Surely a positive effect, which is the effect we all hope accessible knowledge through Wikipedia should obtain. (previous unsigned comment by User:Clio Corteis)
  • I'm not really that familiar with this incident in question - oddly enough, living in Toronto, this seems to be pretty much a non-issue in the media - seems to more of a self-persecution issue in the French media than anything else. That aside however that one would insist that the term should be "Quebec bashing" rather than something like "francophone bashing" seems to be a bit odd to me ... seems to be very much of the Quebec is French bent ... which is considered politically incorrect by most people. Perhaps that is why the phrase "Quebec bashing" seems to be not very common in the English media compared to the French media. As such, this seems to point to this not being the correct article name in English. Perhaps an alternative is Francophone perceptions of "Quebec bashing" in the English media? Nfitz 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The most respected political journalists in Quebec (Michel David, Michel C Auger, Chantal Hébert, André Pratte - certainly not all separatists) all pointed out how quickly the affair was brushed off in Toronto. In spite of letters by Harper and Charest. In spite of a unanimous vote by the House of Commons. It's never the same when it's Quebec, it's never as important. 132.212.92.162 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give an example of how this is taken more seriously by the English media, when other provinces or governments are bashed? Perhaps the English media isn't making much fuss about this, because it's such a non-story. Second-rate columnist shoots her mouth off ... big deal, who gives a f? Why take her seriously ... in Saturday's paper she made a point of smoking in non-smoking areas - she's a much-raking journalist, that's all? I'd say more than anything, that this has become an issue in the Quebec media, is symptom of hyper-sensitivity of the Quebec media, to even the hint of criticism; and if that's the real issue, this article name needs to change. And it appears to be, as it seem important to include Howard Stern in the list of people bashing Quebec. I say if ones needs to use Howard Stern as an important example, then one can't be taken too seriously, and this whole topic is nothing but a farce!! Nfitz 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article does have some minor POV issues (ie: implying that Howard Stern was being anything but his usual self in bashing Quebec), the article is well sourced, and the topic itself does exist. Though it would seem appropriate to counter with a Canada bashing article based on Quebec political attitudes regarding the rest of this nation. Resolute 04:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The entire article is massively PoV. By halfway through the article, I don't think I'd read more than two neutral sentences. In addition, the title itself is inherently biased. Finally, this concept is at its most basic level not neutral as it's only evident from one point of view. Incredibly unencyclopedic. -- Chabuk 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the NPOV : when an article is not written in an impartial way, we fix it, we don't just delete it calling it biased. Regarding the name of the article : When the Canadian Sponsorship Scandal exploded in the media, some people didn't like the expression. The Liberals denied that it was a scandal and that there had been fraud and corruption for a long time. Some people preferred to think of it as the "Liberal Sponsorship Scandal" (presumably people opposed to the Liberals). Some English language media used another term, "AdScam" for sensational effects. Using the same flawed arguments that are always used, some of the usual suspects of the English language press even tried to make it look like a Quebec specific issue, calling it the "Quebec Sponsorship Scandal" as if all of a sudden the fraud had not occured within the federal government, the government of Canada. Everyone was trying to bend things in their favor, to present their POV. In the end, the expression "Sponsorship Scandal" is the one that remained and is even used in the official documents of the Gomery Commission. The point is: the first expression that is used to name something often ends up being the most frequently used expression afterwards. Read on the Linux naming controversy for well-known example (well-known to the geek community at least).
"Quebec bashing" is the name that was first given to the phenomenon by English speakers in Canada. Francophones borrowed it, preferring it over many other French expressions (campagne de salissage, dénigrement du Québec, littérature haineuse etc.) Using another English term, now, all of a sudden, because two or three Wikipedians do not personnally like it is to be rejected because it is so obviously biased. Using another term now would make Wikipedia the only source not using Quebec bashing. -- Mathieugp 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous examples in the text; and none seem to use the term "Quebec bashing". If this term is indeed in common use, in the English langauge, then these are the wrong examples!
Naturally, all articles doing the bashing will not contain the expression "Quebec bashing", only those commenting the phenomenon will. Here are some examples in English :
* Bashing Quebec fashionable in anglo media, Michel David, Montreal Gazette, Friday 21 April 2000
* Letter to the Editor, Alec Cooper, Board Secretary, Voice of English Québec, March 8th, 2000
* Member of Federal Parliament denouncing offensive comments by Don Cherry and Conan O'Brien, Monday, February 16, 2004
* Stop Quebec Bashing, (unfortunately anonymous)
And I don't need to tell you there are many many more articles covering this topic in the French language press. -- Mathieugp 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prime reason to for this particular portion of the debate, is to decide if the name (not the content) of the article is appropriate in the English; so examples from the French media are not relevent. It would appear that all the examples you cite are from within Quebec; what about examples of the use of this phrase from outside Quebec? It's ironic though, that the best reference there, the Montreal Gazette, used "Quebec-bashing" not "Quebec bashing"; however when I moved the article from "Quebec bashing" to what is the clearly proper grammar at "Quebec-bashing", it was reverted, by someone posting in this page, who had "never seen this way spelled"!!! Nfitz 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The third link is a transcript of a parliamentary discussion going on in Ottawa and the second one is from God knows who and where. Yet, you write "all the examples you cite are from within Quebec". I can't figure it out. As I wrote above "the issue is badly, badly covered in the very English media doing the bashing". Still, you want more link from outside Quebec? Here's two:
* Why build bridges to Quebec if Quebeckers could care less?, JEFFREY SIMPSON, Tuesday, December 20, 2005 – Page A25
* a loser, bebe, GRAHAM FRASER, The Star, Jan. 22, 2006
-- 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In the third link, the parliamentry transcript, the only person who used the phrase "Quebec bashing" were: Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ); presumably he was speaking in French, literally used "Quebec bashing" and the words were translated as such ... I'd hardly use this as an example of how the word is used outside Quebec! The issue is badly covered in the English media, because there is no evidence that the English media is treating Quebec any differently than anywhere else. It's very rare to see an negative article about Quebec in the English media - why the French media seems to hunt out every single negative article and hype it, is beyond me! The new Globe and Star quotes are interesting ... again, note the hyphenation ... "Quebec-bashing" not "Quebec bashing" in both. However, the Star article is quoting a francophone, when the word bash is used, so this is can't be used as a source for how the word is used. Nfitz 23:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This text shows clearly how english Canadian medias treat Quebecker.. Quebec bashing has become a great way to express Canadian patriotism. The term Quebec Bashing ( or more clearly, Francophone Quebeckers bashing) is correct. The text is neutral. (unsigned comment my User:Jimmy210 12:57, 25 September 2006)
  • DELETE -- This is an attack article, attacking individuals—some deceased—who cannot defend themselves. The article is rife with factual inaccuracies and logical errors (as well as containing poor grammar and diction). It is an attempt to protect an illegitimate political ideology from legitimate criticism; and, it purports to assert a non-existent pervasive "hostility." The "examples" given, are, in fact, an exhaustive list of all major and minor media criticism now existing in respect of the province of Quebec; and, therefore, they are not examples at all; thus, the "examples" purport to show a grand conspiracy against the French of the province of Quebec; when, in fact, there is no deluge of criticism. The exhaustiveness of the "examples" given reaches the absurd when even radio host Howard Stern's criticism is taken seriously; that, to say the least, is humorless. The article does not, as it appears to claim, merely inform. It by-passes legitimate criticism as purported "bashing," but fails to have a full command of the sources of criticism (the criticism of Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!, for example, shows that this book was either unread or misunderstood). This last assertion is the article's most fatal flaw. It doesn't criticize the primary sources so much as parroting the criticism of others; and, in that respect, the article is unoriginal and doesn't really add anything to the questionable material already available on the Internet. Its one-sidedness, its unbalanced tone, its tendentious sources, its errors and inaccuracies, furthermore, make the article patently un-encyclopedic.
--Lance6968 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always, our favorite hard-banned user DW/Angelique/JillandJack/ALafontaine etc. is back with a new virgin user account to make all kinds of unfounded accusations. Why don't you read this interesting quote taken from page 22 of Immigration, Pluralism and Education by Marie McAndrew :
  • THE BLURB ABOVE was attached to my recommendation for deletion of this "article"; and seems to imply that I am someone therein mentioned; I am not. It is manifestly evident that there is a gang of militants behind this clearly flawed "article"; who are pursuing the propagation of its contents with ferocity comparable to jihad. Does Wikipedia not have internal controls over its medium being hi-jacked? That this aforementioned gang has an unsavory agenda should be clear and alarming. I, therefore, must recommend a STRONG DELETE.

--Lance6968 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"[..] the extremely reductionist analysis of this issue carried out by the anglophone media outside Québec is to be deplored. Rather than having to acknowledge the fact that the French-language school system was sharing the international controversies regarding the balance to be found between the public space and the individual rights on the one hand, and religious and cultural diversity on the other, it chose to present the case as another proof of the hypotheses that tribalism would still [be] the dominant mode of ethnic relations in Québec. This should not come as a surprise when one knows the tendency of the anglophone media to ethnicise, and even in certain cases, to demonise the entire nationalist movement, and, by extension, the francophone population in Québec (see Cisco and Gagné, “Le Québec vu par le Canada anglais”, Voir, 18-24 June 1998 and M. Potvin (in collaboration with M. McAndrew), “Les dérapages racistes à l’égard du Québec au Canada anglais depuis 1995”. Politique et Sociétés, vol. 18, no 2, 1999, p. 101-132)."
-- Mathieugp 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the phenomenon exists it he public consciousness of Quebec, and it is therefore encyclopedic. I (as a unilingual Anglophone) have also fixed the grammar in the intro. An article should not be deleted because it was written by ESL writers. Kevlar67 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just quit a job in Montreal in an english-speaking environment because not a week would go by without me hearing a comment about how conservative, backward, catholic, etc. Quebec society was. OUT OF THE BLUE, I would be lectured by a variety of people about: antisemitism, my oppression of english speakers, racism, aboriginal rights, fascism in Quebec (with the suggestion that it lurked in me as well),etc. In another anglophone work environment, I was told the continued existence of French in Canada was a historical mistake, and that gratefully we would soon disappear. I witness more or less blatant forms of prejudice towards either Quebec or francophone Quebeckers on a regular basis. It is a very real phenomenon, which fosters divisiveness and misunderstanding. Why are people like me contributing for the first time??? Because it is an issue that burns many of us directly, and recent events have brought it to the forefront. (unsigned comment by 66.131.133.47)
  • Strong Keep The arguments against are specious or attest forms of disdian and/or ignorance of Quebec and the said phenomenon, Quebec bashing.

The term exists, the phenomenon exists, the article documents and explains them through examples, frome more serious to less serious media, but usually important media, such as the Globe & Mail. Here's an example of the expression, as used in a blog : "I wanted to share this story with you, since this is not really being covered in the English Canadian media, because in Canada, it's apparently an impossible task to get the exact same news in two languages, something they actually do in Europe (...) I can't say that I'm suprised this is coming from the Globe & Mail, this isn't the first time they've carried on this Quebec bashing". [2] Thus, a term that is used while the examples are seldom reported on or reflected upon in English-Canadian papers certainly warrants an article in a free encyclopedia. One will immediately know from this article what "Quebec bashing" refers to, without being coerced into what to think about the examples. Apparently people here have shown they managed to develop very different opinions of them. The will of some to eliminate even the discussion of the topic shows the actual encyclopedic use of this article : spread knowledge, counter ignorance. Clio Corteis

Do some people view the very existence of this article as a danger? There seems to be a lot of resentment and suspicion in some of the comments suggesting to delete it. If a certain group perceives to be repeatedly targeted by a certain set of prejudices, can they not create an article which describes the phenomenon? If there exist books, articles, etc. which counter the perceived phenomenon of Quebec bashing, then include them in the article. (unsigned comment by 66.131.133.47)
  • Delete An attack article with lots of references but little to connect them to what the term is claimed to mean. The problem of assertions of "ownership" and that at the time this article was nominated it was all a one-man show since he had moved the one other contributors input to the talk page compound the problem. Yes, the existence of this and other attack articles is a danger. Gene Nygaard 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A danger of what? Of informing people of an ongoing issue exploding in the news right now with the Prime minister of Canada, the Canadian House of Commons and the Premier of Quebec denouncing it? When is an issue worthy of mention in Wikipedia? An attack on what and by whom anyway? Since the very beginning, I say that there IS a minor neutrality problem with the article, as you said because it is not made explicit who is the "owner" of such and such claim and also because the English was not always correct. That can be fixed and that is why there is a copy edit tag on the article. Since when do imperfect articles deserve to be deleted? We understand that many people cannot go and read the French articles and verify for themselves: that's a problem. Because of that, the copyediting job will have to include the addition of more translated quotations. If you can translate from French to English, you are welcomed to help the Wikipedian community to improve this article. -- Mathieugp 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BY THE WAY: Wikipedia's Deletion policy explicitely states, under "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed", that if an article is "biased or has lots of POV", the solution is to "list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention". People who support deletion: find a better reason. POVs, even when there are a lot of them, are not a valid reason to suggest deletion. I think this should close the issue. -- Mathieugp 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The danger is revisionism. The allegations exist and bring many reasonable points that indicate a phenomenon could exist. Therefor, it is hard not to see such a deletion as whitewashing. --Liberlogos 11:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly true that an anti-Quebec phenomenon exists in some media, and we've even seen it crop up on Wikipedia in the edits of certain users who tended to vastly overplay any example of a Quebec political or cultural figure making a racially or ethnically biased statement against anglophones, while simultaneously burying examples of English Canadian figures doing the same against francophones. (I won't name them lest I accidentally invoke them, but you do all remember who I'm talking about, right?) But at the same time, "bashing" is a word that can be (and probably has been, by now) added to absolutely any noun in the world in response to any negative statement whatsoever about that noun. Dog bashing, cat bashing, America bashing, Canada bashing, gay bashing, Bush bashing, Jew bashing, and on, and so forth, and that doesn't make every noun string composed of "(insert noun here) bashing" worthy of an article — nine times out of ten, the phrase represents a POV war more than anything else.
I would also take issue with the notion that Quebec-bashing sentiment represents some kind of mainstream of Canadian media opinion; any article that posits wingnuts like Diane Francis, Don Cherry or Howard Galganov as some kind of norm in Canadian media needs a reality check. Not to mention that I really don't think we can conflate Lawrence Martin's criticism of Lucien Bouchard, fair or not, with some kind of condemnation of Quebec society as a whole. (Well, okay, maybe if we wanted to depict Bouchard as some kind of Fisher King, but I think I can safely assume that we don't want to do that.)
All of that said, I don't fundamentally object to the article, given that we also have things like Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Americanism, but it certainly needs a POV scrub. I'd also suggest that we move the title from "Quebec bashing" to something closer to the "Anti-Canadianism"/"Anti-Americanism" title convention. But if those things are done, I'm perfectly fine with a keep. Bearcat 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with major changes, as I think the perception of Quebec in English media is a noteworthy subject. I don't like the "X bashing" formula for titles, and the phrase "Quebec bashing" is absolutely not notable in itself in Canadian English.
My main complaint with the article is that it should be placed in a larger context of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Though it is impeccably sourced and the material included is generally appropriate, the extreme focus on the negative makes it very difficult for me to believe that this article was not conceived with a polemical purpose in mind. Reading the Themes alone makes one think the anglos are a bunch of noose-wielding Orangemen.
One example of the slant of the writing is the Jan Wong bit: it sources a large number of Quebecers as criticizing her idiotic article, but the only Canadian from outside Quebec quoted is Harper. Of course Quebecers are going to be more incensed by Wong's comments than other Canadians, as the subject was their own culture. But there was a furious reaction against Wong throughout English Canadian media, and the strange omission of this gives the impression that the non-Quebec anglo media was indifferent or supportive of Wong's comments. --Saforrest 07:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive comments and good words. I quoted not only Harper, but also the G&M editorial (which was not on the same side as Harper and most Quebec journalists but that was their decision). I simply could not unearth that many more comments positive or negative from English Canada (i.e. the territorial entity, as I quoted all Anglo-Quebecers I could find: The Gazette, Macpherson, Jedwab...) and I stressed that by quoting the Globe saying that, in English Canada, the reaction has been, I quote, "considerably more muted", which addressed the issue the best I could with the available material. It's the Globe that seems to validate the idea of indifference. Now, I have just heard something on radio archives on the net that could show an opposite English Canadian voice... from a former Anglo-Quebecois, told on Quebec French-speaking radio (and even then, some things are not clear about what he said, which could make inclusion difficult).
So: do suggest editorials, columns or other pertinent finds from English Canada from either sides if you find some, with the appropriate sources. The "Themes" section is not pretty, but they're all things you find in there (not one slightly contentious theme is nor referenced), in what is stressed to be "allegated examples of Quebec bashing", not "typical, mainstream, general English Canadian press". The debate on how much this represents an opinion in English Canada is mentioned in the introduction and developping on this is next on my list.
The title is just the expression most common, and that is stressed also in the very first sentence. It's like the article Gay Mafia. People don't go, about the wikipedia title: "well, it's not exactely a mafia; would 'cartel' be better? How about 'syndicate'? Maybe we should try 'commonly motivated group of folks of a homophile tendency with a non-pre-judged possible but not proven and even disputed goal'. It's just the word people have stuck to it; Wikipedia doesn't say they're a mafia, those people do. You raise that this should "be placed in a larger context of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada". That's what the "Context" section was added for; it's new but it attempts to do this and, at the very least, does so partially. --Liberlogos 10:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definetely a real phenomenon, widely commented on in the media. All articles have their problems, especially when new, they will be ironed out with time. Peregrine981 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may not agree with every arguement made in support of this article, but this is as Peregrine981 says, "a real phenomenon" - on par, I would argue, with "Ottawa bashing" and second only to "Toronto bashing" (which receives over twice as many ghits). I'm also in agreement with Bearcat - as it stands the article needs a good bit of attention regarding NPOV. Victoriagirl 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) In the interest of chronology, my vote change is discussed below.[reply]
  • Keep, although it should be renamed Anti-Quebec sentiment. It is definitely a sentiment that exists in large parts of Canada (unfortunately). CrazyC83 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quebec bashing is but one subset of Anti-Quebecois sentiment; this could not be an apt title, I believe. I should get working on an article on this sometime. --Liberlogos 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rereading all comments above, I've come to share the view expressed by some that the title be brought into line with what Bearcat describes as Anti-Canadianism/Anti-Americanism title conventions. Yes, "Quebec bashing" (795 ghits) is a phrase that is used on occasion, but so is "Canada bashing" (12,000 ghits) and "America bashing" (163,000 ghits) - neither of which have Wikipedia entries. Examples of "Canada bashing" and "America bashing" are provided within, respectively, the Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Americanism articles. Frankly, I don't see "Quebec bashing" as a subset of Anti-Quebec sentiment. I wonder, what are the others? I fear the determination as to what is "Quebec bashing" and what isn't - while still being considered Anti-Quebec sentiment - would be highly subjective. Victoriagirl 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or delete. Weaselwords notwithstanding, the article is blatantly POV presuming "Quebec Bashing" is wrong. Since when is free speech wrong? The physical bashing of a live person is wrong, the metaphorical bashing of a social movement is not necessarily so. Inciting to hatred is (in Canada) illegal, but there is nothing immoral about free speech. A balanced article would be OK. Food for thought: Should there be a Canada Bashing article? (No.) Comedian Yvon Deschamps often does routines about Anglos speaking incorrect French, without anyone in the Anglo community complaining, but I remember a stand up routine in English about how silly Clint Eastwood sounds when Dirty Harry is dubbed into French (the joke being he would say "Aiyoye!" instead of "Ouch!") No one dared to laugh and the comic switched to less controversial material. Has Québec bashing become a topic because we are oversensitive? I wonder sometimes. Vincent 05:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep no matter what it's called, it happens, and it's rather widespread. --Chris S. 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With a certain degree of regret, I change my vote (above). My reasoning is four-fold:
1) While I agree that the term "Quebec bashing" is in usage, I have not been able to find a definition of the term outside of this article. Furthermore, I do not agree with the definition and, it would appear, I am not alone.[3] [4] [5] Quite obviously, one cannot create an article around a term for which there is no precise definition.
2) With the exception of Japan, no other geopolitical entity or ethnic group has a similarly titled article, this despite more prevelant usage. To repeat a previous observation, there is no Wikipedia article entitled "America bashing" despite a ghit of 161,000 (over 206 times greater that the 779 ghit for "Quebec bashing"). Fair or unfair, criticisms of the United States are included in Wikipedia's Anti-Americanism article.
For both 1) and 2) : The article Anti-Americanism a complete mess. The first few lines make it clear the contributors failed to properly define the subject "refers to a prejudice against the government, culture, or people of the United States. In practice, a broad range of attitudes and actions critical of or opposed to the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism and the applicability of the term is often disputed." Should we also delete this article too? Some people are strong on the delete button. The dicussion on the definition is important and not over. You are invited to come back. -- Mathieugp 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3) It is my opinion that since the nomination the article has moved farther from the policy of neutral point of view. Moreover, it contains elements of original research. The attempt to define "Quebec bashing" is one obvious example. I will single out the final sentences in the "Themes" section as another example: "They [Quebec bashers] will also sometimes emphasize the superiority of English Canadian or Anglo-Saxon conceptions of democracy, individual liberty and multiculturalism, as well as the world ascendancy of English Canadian tolerance of dissent or "treason", claiming that "only in Canada" could such things be tolerated. Because of these higher morals and principles, Quebec is portrayed as being kept away from sliding into a more somber state only by its association with Canada and its leaders." To whom, one wonders, does this theory belong?
This should indeed be attributed to the right person. Using an unidentified "They" here is one of the reason the copyedit tag is there. But by policy this does not justify a delete. -- Mathieugp 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4) I take issue with the growing reliance on Vigal.net as a third-party source for articles cited. Of the 83 unique links provided as references, Vigil.net provides 47 (57 percent). Leaving aside issues of transcription and copyright - it would appear they are posting at least some articles without permission - the reader is constantly being directed to a website with a clear political agenda (their collection of articles on Mordecai Richler, for example, is titled "Le salisseur-en-chef").
Unfortunately for us, the websites of major newspaper sites do not keep a history of their articles. They probably want us to pay for that... ;-) We should link to the copy of the article on the original instead of Vigile.net whenever possible, but I am afraid it will only work for recent material (after 2000 I guees). -- Mathieugp 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A final comment. I understand that Wikipedia is anything but static and that articles are written collaboratively. If this article survives - as it likely will - I will do my best, in good faith, to bring it up to standard. I encourage others to participate. Victoriagirl 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disapointed by your change of heart, but I respect it. Vigile.net is being relied on because, its archive, standing since 1995, is much more stable than those of most of the newspapers concerned. When the link goes dead for the article on the newspaper's website, chances are the link on Vigile will still be there and remain for years and years to come. Vigile is a press coverage and archive service. Its partisan aspect does not interfere with its archiving: the articles are word for word those from the Globe, the Post, the Devoir, the Presse, etc. Vigile is not the source, these papers are; Vigile is used only for the safety its text storage provides. Also, some of these articles are online, but protected from non-subscribers on the original newspapers' websites. If somehow Vigile was still a problem, most could be found elsewhere, we'd change the links and that would be that. I am very surprised to read that you think it has become actually less NPOV: since the nomination, not only useful tweaking of the existing text has occured but also the addition of the sections "Debate" and "Different depictions" that greatly temper the article, as well as the section "Context", that mentions the Parizeau referendum speech and the Michaud Affair, as well as the finding of an English Canadian criticism (in an article) for Wong and a passage added about her talking about the Devoir cartoon.
If you disagree with the title, that's entirely another debate and Wikipedia has its own different way of dealing with this (templates and talk pages). First, I'll say that, golly, Googlesearches aren't The supreme reference on everything. Also, comparing "America bashing" with "Quebec bashing" is not apt for a number of reasons. The United States has exponentially more population and world influence and relations than Quebec. But as importantly if not more, the fact that the expression is in English tricks us into false analogies and analysis. "America bashing" will be discussed in English (within and without the USA), where the words are not a colloquialism, not a loaned expression, it's a natural assembling of two English words and therefor will appear much more easily. "Quebec bashing", will be discussed in French (mostly within Quebec exclusively, in a much smaller population). It is a loaned expression from another language and is not therefor a natural assembling of words; it will be used only when refering to that specific expression. Finally, I have seen your attempts to contribute constructively to the article; thank you. --Liberlogos 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I, too, am disappointed that I felt obliged to change my vote. Again, while I think that there is most certainly a place on Wikipedia for an article dealing with Anti-Quebec sentiment, my primary concern is that the title "Quebec bashing" has not been properly defined. Respectfully, that you've defined it as one subset of Anti-Quebecois sentiment leads me to wonder how many other articles are to follow - and, as I've previously written, exactly where the line is to be drawn. I would prefer one comprehensive article - again, to belabour the point, like Wikipedia's Anti-Americanism and Anti-Canadianism - than a vaguely defined series. Point taken concerning ghits and the relative populations and influence of Quebec and the United States - though I hasten to add that "Toronto bashing" has 841,000 ghits, while the population of the city (and I daresay, its influence) is less than that of Quebec. Though I would argue the contrary, I do recognize the possibility that "Quebec bashing" might be a term used more amongst French-speakers. If so, might it not be a term considered for redirection on the English-language edition of Wiki? Just a thought.
Point also taken concerning Vigile.net's archives. That said, I hold true to the idea that the source is the source. If a link does go dead, so be it - in this country confirmation requires nothing more than a trip to a major library. Outside Canada, I suppose one might have to query a fellow Wikipedian. Inconvenient, yes - but I maintain that it is inappropriate to rely on a third-party source, particularly one with a clear-cut political agenda. While I don't for a moment believe that the articles found on Vigil have in any way been altered, I would find myself unable to defend the site against such an accusation - particularly as, again, these pieces seem to have been archived without permission.
My thanks for your recognition. I look forward to contributing further in the future.Victoriagirl 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the fact that a user has inserted his own comments into my communication (above - 19:58, 30 September 2006). Not only is the act a clear violation of Wiki policy, it is serves to confuse as this occured after another user had responded to my comments (to which I had in turn responded). That said, I will address Mathieugp's comments. I'm afraid the quality of the Anti-Americanism article is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that "Anti-Americanism" is a well-defined term. Among other dictionaries, "Anti-Americanism" is defined within the pages of The Oxford English Dictionary (which cites the first usage of the term as having taken place in 1844). The fact is that we have yet, despite all our work, found any definition of "Quebec bashing". I maintain that to build an article around a term that has yet to be defined outside of Wikipedia is, simply put, original research. I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source.Victoriagirl 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Disquieting Degeneration into outright antisemitism. I shall reproduce verbatim the patent nonsense under the rubric “Esther Delisle”:

“Esther Delisle received an education in politic [sic] with israelis [sic] researcher specialist in nazi and antisemitic speech [sic] before she study history [sic]. She give speech for the B'nai Brith organisation in synagogue [sic].”

So what is the implication, or relevance, of the unreferenced assertion that: “Esther Delisle received an education in politic [sic] with israelis [sic] researcher specialist in nazi and antisemitic speech [sic] before she study history [sic]. She give speech for the B'nai Brith organisation in synagogue [sic]”?

And, yes, this does sound like Borat from Khazakstan. Clearly, this nonsense reflects the rampant antisemitism of the “movement” that the author of this “article” is apparently a member of.

For those who are unable to see the implication, however, let me explain.

The strange reasoning is that no “pure wool” French Canadian would study in Israel or, worse, attend a Synagogue. In other words Delisle is being dismissed as a “Jew”; notwithstanding that she is both French and Roman Catholic; just not “pure” enough.

--Lance6968 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That passage was added by one individual whose only contribution was this. I, the main contributer to the article, am actually the one who put the "clean-up" tag and I had erased completly another similar addition to the same section. If it proves anything about my edits, it's that I'm much much less biased than you want to desperately portray me, and it's dishonest (or badly researched) to try to make people think this excerpt represents the work of the main contributer, or the whole article. The passage in question is a mess. It's undermining the article. I'm pulling it from the text. Do not speculate on my personal political opinions; I'm contributing here as a Wikipedian and citizen of the world. Also, as the article proves, this is a cross-ideology issue. About Borat: now, who's watching "silly television show"? --Liberlogos 07:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but re-word it. This is just insane. i thought wikipedia disproved of insulting and bashing other cultures. my vote is to either word it in a way so that it is inoffensive towards quebecois viewers (or those that may seem a bit annoyed/angered/hurt), or to simply delete and protect. Yes, the topic is legitimately useful for researching the culture of English Canada versus French Canada, but it shouldn't be done in a mean-spirited light. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm changing my mind yet again. While there is value of having an article on this subject - this is not the article. Attempts to distill the article down have failed, and the article is getting even longer and unwieldy, full of much material that just doesn't belong here. Best to delete the entire article, and start again in a few months with different participants, with different perspectives. Nfitz 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If moving is a better option, I agree with Victoriagirl that it should be moved to Anti-Quebec Sentiment or something similiar. Nfitz 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh darnit. People, this article examines the phenomenon of many people *saying* there's "Quebec bashing", Wikipedia doesn't ever use "bashing" itself, authoritatively ("it is a term used by people" and "it has been called", not "Quebec has been bashed especially since..."). It's the subject of the article; why remove it from the title? I know it's not clear to people outside but, to a great number of French-speaking people in Quebec, the words "Quebec bashing" spring to mind instantly something very clear, while something else would be more nebulous. As I was saying above, do we bust our heads in changing the title of Gay Mafia? Do we go at Cheese-eating surrender monkeys saying "Are they really into all cheeses, or is it more of a Camembert thing? Monkeys is a little too narrow, some of them act more like lemurs." An attempt to change the name seems distorting. But I am not entierly closed to the idea. This will be decided in a *different forum*. If a name had to be chosen, it would have to resemble this: Anti-Quebecois sentiment in the media since the Quiet Revolution. We must fix it in time: it makes sense since the current alleged media bias is linked to the emergence of the modern Quebec nationalism and if we don't, there's a lot of stuff from the 19th century papers we'll have to rake up, and I feel that for now this can be addressed in the future parent page Anti-Quebecois sentiment (it's a redirect as I'm writing this; long story). --Liberlogos 11:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was kind of fond of Francophone perceptions of "Quebec bashing" in the English media. Seriously though, there seems to be way too much original research in this article. For such a simple concept, to need so many references, rather than 2 or 3 single references, seems to imply to me that most of this article is original research and should be deleted. Nfitz 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, let me remind you that the expression was used naturally *on the public broadcaster* (CBC, or rather SRC, see top of page).-- unsigned contribution by Liberlogos 11:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC
In which case, the phrase was used in a French-language broadcast. The use of a term in by a foreign-language outlet has no bearing on it's usage in the English Wikipedia. Nfitz 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quebec_bashing&oldid=1070385074"