Highly POV paragraph not to be re-added |
|||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
: For a more accurate account of how and why the above paragraph was removed by two different administrators, and [[User:Disfasia]] received not one but two final warnings by the same two administrators, see [[User talk:Disfasia]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Disfasia_reported_by_User:Mathieugp_.28Result:_Warnedw.29 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring] . Sorry to all. I know you have better things to do, especially in July. ;-) -- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] ([[User talk:Mathieugp|talk]]) 23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) |
: For a more accurate account of how and why the above paragraph was removed by two different administrators, and [[User:Disfasia]] received not one but two final warnings by the same two administrators, see [[User talk:Disfasia]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Disfasia_reported_by_User:Mathieugp_.28Result:_Warnedw.29 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring] . Sorry to all. I know you have better things to do, especially in July. ;-) -- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] ([[User talk:Mathieugp|talk]]) 23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
It was removed because you are warring mathieugp. And you clearly have nothing better to do than harass wiki users and censure content here. You incredible lack of honesty is only underscorred by your inabilty to respect the "do not remove until dispute is resolved" and your constant lying on this site about the references not being valid. You clearly have difficulty understanding English or you simply have not read the sources. You need to stay off this wiki entry and let third parties who are both honest and competent deal with the editing. Failure to do so and I will request your being indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Stop harassing me, stop censuring this site, and stop condescending to what is an open access forum. Got it? [[User:Disfasia|Disfasia]] |
Revision as of 10:10, 19 July 2009
Canada: Quebec C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Holidays Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
William Johnson's article
The source citing Johnson's article in the section about the political nature of the celebration, doesnt mention anything about non french canadians minorities, despite Never give up! Never surrender!'s claims. It talks about Johnson's feeling that the national holiday was being held up exclusively by sovereignists (or separatists in his own words), and that it excluded french canadians outside quebec, english-quebecers (which does not represent ALl of Quebec's minorities), and quebec's federalists. I want to hear the opinions of other users on this.Lanççelot (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The whole "Political nature of the celebration" is unsourced and is destined to be biased and dissatisfy many readers. I doubt there even are credible sources discussing the topic with coldheadedness and impartiality anywhere in any language. I move to ditch the whole section.
- Impartiality is not defined as "those sources with which sovereignists happen to agree." Besides, if Johnson is so objectionable, why is he archived extensively on www.vigile.net? Vote for retention of Johnson's article.Toddsschneider (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- And let's be reasonable: if we are to seriously discuss (at some point) the misunderstanding between Quebecers and certain francophones outside Quebec who decided to hold on to the French-Canadian name, it will not be here in this article and it will not be using William Johnson's overly partisan and defamatory opinions as reference... There must be some leaders of out-of-Quebec francophone associations who can be quoted on this, if really it is an issue and not just a media fabrication? If it is just a blow from a federalist to a sovereignist (or the other way around), in my opinion it is immediately disqualified as representative of anything other than that one person's political opinion. This article can be improved upon in many ways that would be more informative than petty political accusations of unknown origin. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Anglophone artists at the St-Jean celebration was a huge media controversy, in both the English and French media. Francophone politicians and public figures from all over the political "spectrum" in Quebec, came out in support of the anglo artists. Johnson wrote a follow-up piece which bears citation.[1]
- The paragraph clearly states that it is the authors opinion. The wording at the moment is not correct, it has been vandalized to represent a Québécois-centric view and not a summary of what Johnson said in his article. For those who do not have access to the whole article, and are following the link that only shows the intro, it is on Lanççelot's talk page.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- This may be so, but the section remains a piece of mostly unsourced material, more polemical than encyclopedic in nature. Does it enlighten the reader on the "Political nature of the celebration"? There would need to be multiple POV represented there, which is not the case.
- Regarding Johnson's article, which I am reading in full for the first time, it really is his opinion that "La fête de la Saint-Jean until the secessionist Parti Québécois took office in 1976 and changed the name to exclude French Canadians outside Quebec from the festivities." This sentence is factually incorrect on many accounts. It attributes the name change to the PQ and post-1976, when it is to be attributed to the delegates at the Estates-General of French Canada in 1967 who resolved that Quebec was the national territory of the French Canadian nation (nothing surprising there when one knows the history of the renaming from Canada to Quebec and from BNA to Canada). It gives as a motive for the change the "exclusion" of French Canadians outside Quebec, which is not only inaccurate but absurd. On their national day, the Americans, whether in America (USA) or outside of it are free to celebrate. In fact, it generally is the case that embassies celebrate the national day abroad. Being outside the national territory does not exclude non-residing members of a nation from celebrating their national day.
- "No one represented English-speaking Quebec, unless one counts St. Patrick." => Actually, St. Patrick represents Ireland, a country whose first official language is Irish, not English. Paul Cargnello, a native English-speaking Québécois was singing that night in the Montreal concert. Not to mention Samian. This is really dishonest journalism because his unique implication in the article is that the event is at the hands of separatists excluding out-of-Quebecers and minorities.
- Any serious survey of Ireland would place the country squarely in the Anglosphere.Toddsschneider (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Quebec invests millions in celebrating its Fête Nationale and, in nearly every part of the province, its organization is put in the hands of separatists." => The national holiday of Quebec, which still occurs on June 24, St. John the Baptist Day, and is still organized by the St-Jean-Baptiste Society today, is a day of celebration of the Quebec nation. Yes, it is controlled by Quebec nationalists, much like Canada Day's organization is controlled by Canadian nationalists. Yes, it is true, since the majority of Quebec nationalists are separatists, we can logically conclude that the June 24 celebrations are organized by mostly separatists. It has been like that for over 40 years. And I do not believe Quebec is about to run out of separatists singers, songwriters, poets and musicians... - Mathieugp (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not only nationalists but anglophobes, who were horrified that St-Jean might become bilingual with the precedent of L'Autre St-Jean.Toddsschneider (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is the only portion of this section that is properly sourced. We must include facts about opinions, without implying that any one opinion is correct. As a radical former president of a minority lobby group we must, in order to maintain Neutrality, include this properly sourced opinion. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what he is saying in the article, but as a prominent journalist, and political figure, he was the voice of the largest non-French speaking minority in Quebec and a prominent representative of the view that the celebrations are politicized. (whether the view is correct or not, it is still a view)--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- He was not speaking as a representative of any group, only as a journalist as far as I know. I am convinced that any attempt at introducing (however neutral) a description of federalists bashing sovereignists (or the other way around) is certain not to be encyclopedic in nature and is definitely not Wikipedia material. There is so much that could be written on (for example) the history of June 24, in Quebec and in the rest of French-speaking America over the past 175 years. Or the customs that were (or still) are associated with the St-Jean, etc. The junk under "Political nature of the celebration" doesn't even deserve to make it into WikiNews as far as I am concerned.
- How do you propose to improve this section to make it acceptable according to Wikipedia's criteria? I can think of a few scholarly books that might discuss some aspects of all this with intelligence, but I am not so sure. It seems to me that the subject is inherently polemical.
- In the meantime, I cannot agree that the sentence should stay as it is: Nowhere does Johnson state that "many non-French-Canadian minorities view June 24 as an ethnic and politicized event rather than a civic celebration", he asserts or implies that it is such without any sort of reference. In other words, that is is opinion, but he presents it as though it were a fact, and any person who was attending the concert in Montreal last year can testify that his insinuations are lieful for everything other than pointing out the obvious fact that the show is run by people almost universally favourable to the independence of Quebec. But we do not need to quote Johnson to prove this... It can be said without polemic and defamation. And if it is to be said, then in Canada Day, we need an equally big section on the "Political nature of that celebration", with evil separatists being quoted complaining about the percentage of the celebration budget going to Quebec vs. the rest of Canada, the Sponsorship Scandal, the fact people are busing moving to another apartment in Montreal, etc.
- I hope I am making it obvious that we do not want to go there. This is precisely what Wikipedia is not for. It seems to me that the national day of Quebec deserves the same kind of quiet and neutral respect the national day of Canada gets in en.wikipedia.org. On the other hand, the fr:Fête du Canada probably needs a little neutral love right now. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that no matter what is put up to explain that the one side views it as such, will be disputed by the other side as biased, even when factual. The version as it is right now neutraly summarizes what Johnson wrote in his article. The facts are that the holiday is supposed to be for everyone but, as Johnson points out, because most of the organizers and the festivities are very pro-seperation/soverenty the minorities do not feel welcome. As I have not attended any June 24th celebrations in over 15 years (they don't celebrate it where I live), I can not speak to what happened in any particular celebration, and I do not try to either. In my honest opinion (Not a fact just my thoughts), I think that what the original author(s) was trying to convey, (And I am just talking about this article, not arguing about whether other celebrations or events have simular problems) is that a celebration that is supposed to unite us all as Quebecers has had the opposite effect. I do know from personal experience that not all French Speaking Quebecers are pro-seperation/soverenty, and many of them also stay away from the celebrations for the same reasons, but as I am not a public figure it means nothing. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop arguing over this as it was not my paragraph to begin with. ----
We need to come up with a better way to write this whole section, the paragraph in question is the only sourced item and seems to be all of a sudden very contreversial. We can not hide or dismiss the fact that the holiday is as the law states a holiday for all Québécois, but the festivities are primarily geared towards a more Nationalist/Seperatist/Sovereigntist and that people who do not adhere to this idealogy feel unwelcome or even unwanted. I am open to suggestions. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion was to zap the section. I still believe it is the best thing to do for the moment. It would not be difficult to demonstrate that most Quebecers who are "Nationalist/Seperatist/Sovereigntist" do not feel welcomed celebrating the federal State of Canada on July 1st. There isn't much to say beyond that that will not end up being a cause for endless and useless revert wars.
- Quite false. A francophone nationalist would be welcome at any Canada Day celebration sponsored by the Conservative or Liberal parties of Canada. They were the same who voted in favor of the "Quebec is a nation (within Canada)" resolution in the Canadian Parliament. A separatist is another creature. But try wearing a "Canada" T-shirt to St-Jean Toddsschneider (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am the one who created the section by the way. It would seem I created it on 24 juin 2005 à 14:14 with unsourced material (not written by me) which originally stated just this:
- Until the 1970s, Dominion Day, which fell on 1 July, was little more than a day away from work for most Canadians. To respond to the Quebec nationalist appropiation of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, the federal government promoted 1 July as a national holiday for Canada. It did so by furnishing funds for lavish celebrations and by changing the name of the holiday to Canada Day. Within Quebec, separatists have tended to use the Fête nationale du Québec to promote identification with Quebec, while their opponents have used Canada Day celebrations to stress loyalty to Canada as a whole. Canada Day parades in Montreal attract crowds composed mostly of anglophones and recent immigrants. The battle of the holidays has caused the two levels of government to compete with each other in financing public spectacles (e.g., outdoor jazz concerts). Most ordinary people, however, use the two holidays for apolitical recreational activities, appreciating the flood of free entertainment provided in late June and early July.
- I don't see that there has been any improvement of this section over the past four years... In fact, I find it was a lot more reasonable then than now, despite the reference notes in the current version. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I actually went back a year, then got sidetracked by kids and everything. I did not find where the Johnson article paragraph was even introduced as of yet. My original involvement with this paragraph was when Lanççelot changed it, that got me looking into the source, which the link only shows the intro to the aticle now, So I went on a hunting expedition to get the whole article, sometimes an intro doesn't say it all. Also when you are not a native speaker of a language, comprehension is a factor. I found that the original wording here was more representative of the article by Johnson. We all know too well that words have different uses, and when a text is translated it can lose some of it's meaning. Even my handle on WP eludes to this problem.
- It seems to me that the wounds of our fathers have not healed, and the same rhetoric seems to bring back a longing for what once was, holding us back from being able to become what should.
- I for one identify with both sides, and see this type of thing all around the world. What we should all realize is that in reality both English and French are descendants of immigrants who at one time left their home lands in search for a better life. And it can even be argued that we both come from the same heritage.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon? Now that is off topic entirely. If you want to more accurately quote from Johnson and work to fix the section, then go ahead, otherwise do you agree that it is only fair to get rid of the section entirely so the article is about as neutral and polemic-free as are Canada Day, St. Patrick's Day or any of the other National day articles in WP? Surely all sides of your family would agree to equal respect for everyone... ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if you feel that way, I was just trying to explain briefly my envolvment in the "dispute", and my perspective so you would understand that I have no bias either way, (English mother French-Canadian father, born in the US, raised in a french only speaking area of Québec). It was also very "late" in the morning and I tend to get philosophical. This section does need to be there, but I am unsure as what to do to make it better at this time. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon? Now that is off topic entirely. If you want to more accurately quote from Johnson and work to fix the section, then go ahead, otherwise do you agree that it is only fair to get rid of the section entirely so the article is about as neutral and polemic-free as are Canada Day, St. Patrick's Day or any of the other National day articles in WP? Surely all sides of your family would agree to equal respect for everyone... ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I for one identify with both sides, and see this type of thing all around the world. What we should all realize is that in reality both English and French are descendants of immigrants who at one time left their home lands in search for a better life. And it can even be argued that we both come from the same heritage.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to put together something that talks about this section in a neutral fasion, and would like some input. No matter what I come up with it doesn't seem to reflect either side in a good light, and I know that can't be what we want.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, I know what you mean. Some topics are just too difficult (or to close to us) to be treated with the rational objectivity needed for Wikipedia. That's why nowadays I focus on historical events that happened long ago, yet are still poorly understood by the general public, even in 2009. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was consensus not to move the article, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
National Holiday (Quebec) → Quebec's National Holiday — See discussions above and archived. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, use Saint Jean Baptiste Day as this is the common name. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, considering how long it took to get the current name, which is acceptable, I am not favourable to a move. Arriving to a new consensus is unlikely to occur in my opinion. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, was already discussed and this was the compromise. Also note that other "National Holiday" celebrations use (and could use) the same name (Only luxemburg currently). Note: The legal description in English of the holiday is simply National Holiday. (in Quebec is not part of the name of the holiday, only designates where, as in Thanksgiving in Canada, or Thanksgiving in The USA.) The literal translation of the French name would be "The National Festival of Quebec". --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Holiday Name
Is National Holiday (Quebec) / National Holiday of Quebec correct? It would appear to me that the holiday for a Province cannot be considered a national holiday.--RedKnight (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The people of Quebec gave themselves their national institutions over the State they could, in this case a Provincial State. The National Assembly of Quebec made June 24 the National Holiday of Quebec in 1977. It is the object of a particular act of parliament which you can read here:
- Gouvernement du Québec. "National Holiday Act", in CanLII, Federation of Law Societies of Canada, updated to May 1st, 2008, retrieved June 29, 2008 -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- An Act of a provincial legislature, under the federal state of Canada, that is.Toddsschneider (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The correct name is Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. The National Holiday name is only used by a small number of radical Quebec sovereignists. — NRen2k5(TALK), 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's the name used by law and by Québec government. It's also used by the Québec Prime-Minister (currently a federalist) and by the Canadian Prime-Minister. It's also used in medias and is the official name of the celebrations. The Saint-Jean-Baptiste day is a religious celebration, the National Holiday is a civic one. Not the same thing. Jimmy Lavoietalk 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- The official name not withstanding (A term you know), the French Québecois people do not call it by this name, and many celebrations are still called Saint-Jean Baptiste Day.--JamesLavoie (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's the name used by law and by Québec government. It's also used by the Québec Prime-Minister (currently a federalist) and by the Canadian Prime-Minister. It's also used in medias and is the official name of the celebrations. The Saint-Jean-Baptiste day is a religious celebration, the National Holiday is a civic one. Not the same thing. Jimmy Lavoietalk 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Highly POV paragraph not to be re-added
The central problem of this holiday for many Quebecois is that this festivity symbolizes the celebration of "pure laine"(literally translated as "pure wool"), a term used to describe someone born in Quebec and directly descended from European blood. [28] [29] The Saint Jean Baptiste holiday focuses on both linguistic and racial purity thereby alienating the growing numbers of non-white, non-French and many French speaking Quebecois (of all origins). [30] However, recent journalism on this subject has shown that the younger generations of franco Quebecois find this issue of language a "non-issue", while others hold this idea of "French only" as essential to Quebecois identity. [31] This is a highly contentious subject which few discuss openly; yet the day before the 2008 celebration, Stéphane Gendron, an established francophone radio presenter, questioned if this holiday was not more of a polemic than a celebration. On the television show, "L'avocat du diable", Gendron said "we are a people of liars", indicating the 35%-40% rate of unemployment for "our Arab colleagues" adding: "We are a nation of racists!" accusing the Quebecois leadership of demagogery by exaggerating the language issues in the province in order to avoid discussing the real and more immediate issues. [32]
This paragraph has been continually deleted by Mathieugp and I would like other input as to the validity of this information. I have cited, academic texts and newspapers which have looked into the polemic behind this festival. I would prefer input from those outside the country since it would seem people here are unable to maintain their calm nor respect for other wiki users. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- For a more accurate account of how and why the above paragraph was removed by two different administrators, and User:Disfasia received not one but two final warnings by the same two administrators, see User talk:Disfasia and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring . Sorry to all. I know you have better things to do, especially in July. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It was removed because you are warring mathieugp. And you clearly have nothing better to do than harass wiki users and censure content here. You incredible lack of honesty is only underscorred by your inabilty to respect the "do not remove until dispute is resolved" and your constant lying on this site about the references not being valid. You clearly have difficulty understanding English or you simply have not read the sources. You need to stay off this wiki entry and let third parties who are both honest and competent deal with the editing. Failure to do so and I will request your being indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Stop harassing me, stop censuring this site, and stop condescending to what is an open access forum. Got it? Disfasia