Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What the hell!?

This article is full of insanely POV material, IE a sentence declaring that the seperatist movement has won no matter what the federal government decides. There are similar POV stuff coming from the other side. This article needs to be completely cleaned up or simply removed and rewritten. 74.56.36.34 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following which was unsourced and uses inflammatory unencyclopedic language: "Ultimately, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will prevail in Quebec. Violations of the charter are commonplace; however, eventually the charter will be applied, much to the dismay of any racist xenophobes, of whatever political or ethnic classification in the belle province." How the author of this can assert that the Charter of Right and Freedoms 'will prevail' when the Charter has a notwithstanding clause built into it. We can't see into the future. If there is a verifiable source that concludes that, for whatever political, social, or moral reasons Quebec will continue to align its laws in keeping with the Charter, well, then that would be different. And the facetious reference to the 'belle province' is unwarranted. We wouldn't expect an article concerning Ontario to refer to it as "Upper Canada" in a derisive fashion. Corlyon (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article. I have tried to be reasonable and tread carefully as this article is obviously a potential battleground of ideologies. I have tried to flesh out the section on Context a little; and delete obviously over-the-top pronouncements about people's motives. I have found sources for much of what I have added, but finding sources for all of the 'fact' tags is a little more challenging. I have not yet touched the 'Examples' section, is it possible that there may be an overabundance of these? The article may benefit from trimming this to focus on a representative selection of good examples; the immediate media/official responses (francophone and anglophone); the Quebec societal response embodied in counter attacks based on allegations of English Canadian racism and official efforts to address issues (like the Bouchard-Taylor Commission). The article as it stands currently, however, is drifting towards a "they're more racist than we are and always have been/will be" kind of dialectic between the two camps. Corlyon (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jean François Lisée

Is this writer being discussed as an example of Quebec bashing? I don't follow. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, in the original article, entitled Quebec bashing, before it was destroyed and ultimately abandoned by its primary author (User:Liberlogos), Jean-François Lisée's book In the Eye of the Eagle (on American policies and public opinion concerning the Quebec movement for independence between 1950-1990) was a source for numerous examples of Quebec bashing. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Corlyon (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In view of the fact that this segment of the article focuses on the person or media exhibiting what is or has been considered to be 'anti-Quebec sentiment' I think perhaps the example title should refer only to Scully, and not include Lisée who wrote the book commenting on the article (among other things). Corlyon (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would make more sense. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Esther Delisle

This segment really rambles in the point/counterpoint style. In the end it is more a defence of the substance of Delisle's thesis, such that the focus of the section, that being the initial accusations of Quebec-bashing are lost. What are we saying here, that Delisle raised issues about Lionel Groulx, an important figure in the development of Québécois self-identity, that her work was attacked as a being simply "anti-Quebec"; but that on review many people (including francophone journalists) have come to agree that Groulx did in fact harbour anti-Semitic prejudices which influenced his work. Are we saying that the way this thesis was presented by Delisle was, in itself, inflammatory or motivated by something other than scholarship? (even the truth can be presented in a way designed to promote prejudice rather than to foster greater self-awareness or understanding) Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot comment on that section because it is too ugly, but to get a general idea of how her thesis and book participated to the Quebec bashing phenomenon, you can read The Traitor and the Jew article (despite the various unsourced claims written as counterpoints to what I wrote, rigorously citing Calwell and Bouchard) and the draft I had started a while ago on the topic. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now read the Caldwell article, which helps to put things into a better overall context. It would seem that there are issues taken with some of Ms. Delisle's methodology and consequently with some of the conclusions that she reached, which prompted 2 of the U. Laval jury members to vote against her PhD thesis. haven't yet read Bouchard Corlyon (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the 3rd paragraph is irrelevant to the article, as it relates to an accusation against Delisle that has been hotly refuted. (It would be relevant to the article on Esther Delisle herslf and there should be a redirect) Corlyon (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention there is no quote at all to verify that any such accusation was ever made. It could be, but I have never read any mention of this other than in Wikipedia, so I am a little sceptical. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mordechai Richler

This segment is about as long as most of these should be, in my view.

Don Cherry

<sigh> What can one say about this man? This is a good example of 'Quebec bashing', if there ever is one. I don't really think that he acknowledges that some Quebec hockey players are talented rehabilitates him more than the smallest amount. The broader question then is: how far is Canadian society willing to go to tolerate a person's right to express an opinion that is blunt, or that some consider motivated by bigotry? Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The question Quebecers have asked, when they denounced him, was: "Is it conceivable that a person working for the public French-language TV Radio-Canada, who is being watched everyday by a loyal francophone fan base, be allowed to pass racist anti-English Canadian comments on a regular basis?" "No", was the answer most people gave, "such a thing could never exist here, and were the unthinkable to occur, he would immediately get fired." And then logically some other people asked: "Why wasn't he fired then?" And the answer given by the evil Quebec nationalists and those numerous English Canadians who are not blinded by chauvinism was: "Because there is unfortunately a market for bashing Quebec in Ontario." But of course that is POV, and cannot be written just like that in Wikipedia. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the human desire to 'bash' one's neighbours, especially neighbours that one doesn't understand or disagrees with, is boundless. How much ink was spilled on the subject of our American neighbours from 2000-2008? Corlyon (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. People should just work out or play video games when they need to release some steam and leave the rest of us alone. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lafferty

If Quebec bashing is linked to the anglophone (or world) media, then how does this example sustain the article's content? If this man is a broker who, in the context of his business, sent out a bulletin to 275 people (presumably clients?) then, it worse, it is an example of personal prejudice infecting the conduct of business. It does work within the context of general 'anti-Quebec sentiment' if Lafferty is not a Quebecer. Otherwise it would have to be seen as 'anti-sovereignist' or 'anti-nationalist' sentiment, which spilled over into defamation against individuals. I would propose this segment be dropped, or framed as an example of how prejudice among non-francophones has manifested itself outside of the media. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point was that this was a consequence, one that ended up before the courts[1], of what is denounced as Quebec bashing. The demonization of Quebec sovereignist/nationalist leaders, which is probably what was tolerated by corporate media in the beginning (to support the fight against them) is what opened wide the door to excess and resulted in unacceptable slurs on Quebecers in general, French-speaking (or of presumed "French" background) in particular, not to mention attacks on all of Quebec's national symbols. You can read Maryse Potvin, "Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998", in Canadian Ethnic Studies, volume XXXII, issue 2, 2000, pages 1-26 for a good analysis of it. The same person published a research report entitled Les médias écrits et les accommodements raisonnables. L’invention d’un débat for the Bouchard-Taylor commission. Based on that report, the commission itself published a summary article on each of the cases that were distorted beyond any recognition in the mainstream media. Public opinion suffers greatly from a lack of a universally accepted and vigorously enforced NPOV mechanism. In Canada, it is worst because of the two languages, as intelligently commented upon by Durham in his report over 170 years ago:

The difference of language produces misconceptions yet more fatal even than those which it occasions with respect to opinions: it aggravates the national animosities, by representing all the event of the day in utterly different lights. The political misrepresentation of the facts is one of the incidents of a free press in every free country; but in nations in which all speak the same language, those who receive a misrepresentation from one side, have generally some means of learning the truth from the other. In Lower Canada however, where the French an English papers represent adverse opinions, and where no large portion of the community can read both languages with ease, those who receive the misrepresentations are rarely able to avail themselves of the means of correction. It is difficult to conceive the perversity with which the misrepresentation are habitually made, and the gross delusions which find currency among the people; they thus live in a world of misconceptions - in which each party is set against the other, not only by diversity of feelings and opinions, but by an actual belief in utterly different set of facts.

That remains mostly true today, although now the context is no longer Lower Canada alone, but British North America as a whole. - Mathieugp (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The extent that Durham's comments remain pertinent even today is astonishing. And these problems are made worse by Canada's exaggerated geography. Corlyon (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What we do not have for cases considered Quebec bashing is some fairly neutral chronology like the one on pages 46 to 60, in the report of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. This is most unfortunate. Producing such a chronology would help a lot. -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Appointment of David Levine

Needs citations. There's nothing to help the reader find out what was said, and when. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Diane Francis

Obviously an important and notable issue, given the profile of Diane Francis, but the segment seems overly long. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Martin

This one seems marginal to me. I have never heard of Mr. Martin or his book, but perhaps it was a major controversy in Quebec so I won't touch it without doing some review of sources. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Martin wrote The Antagonist: A Biography of Lucien Bouchard and the Politics of Delusion, Toronto: Viking, 1997, 356 p. I cannot recall what was written about the book or even if the controversy was about his book, but it seems likely. I did not read that book (and probably never will) so I have no opinion on the subject. I think User:Liberlogos might be able to clear this up. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Des bouts de chiffon rouge

Is this an example of 'Anti-Quebec sentiment' or alleged anti-Canadian sentiment? Was the response to Landry's comment in the anglophone media picked up by the francophone media as more 'Quebec-bashing'? Or is this included as an example of intemperate or insulting remarks made by a prominent francophone leader? Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that probably it was someone trying to show that there is an anti-Canadian sentiment in Quebec, coming from Quebec elected leaders. Which, by the way, this is not an example of. Landry had to explain himself, he apologized to those who had been offended, but never retracted a single word and even quoted a dictionary to prove he was just using a maybe uncommon but nevertheless real expression, which most journalists (even French-speaking ones) apparently did not understand. In this article published 5 years later the event, Lysiane Gagnon of La Presse admits she had wrongly interpreted Landry's words.

Landry made another expressing even more famous when he kept repeating audi alteram partem during the Quebec general election, 2003. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're correct that this incident is an attempt to show anti-Canadian sentiment (and I agree that's how it reads to me), then it seems out of place in the list of examples given which is supposed to be showing examples of excessively critical commentary of Quebec in the anglophone media. Corlyon (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem out of place. The article was totally abandoned to its faith for a long period of time and much nonsense was added to it. I am still unsure what to think of it myself. If really the topic is to be "Anti-Quebec sentiment" in general, an article participating to a series of articles on discrimination, then we need to find source material discussing that, and fork the "Quebec bashing" phenomenon into a separate article. Regarding the treatment of the more general subject, I think we need to construct a solid bibliography first before we venture into this area. I'll see what I can find. -- Mathieugp (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But isn't 'Quebec bashing' the media-linked phenomenon at the more extreme edge of 'anti-Quebec sentiment'. Hopefully we don't have to have 2 separate articles. This article will have to discuss incidents that have been characterized as Quebec bashing by (1) a portion of the francophone media, (2) most of the francophone media; or (3) the francophone media and some of the anglophone media; with or without public figures as well. If we take 'Quebec Bashing' out of this article, then it will be an article in search of focus, that will inevitably run itself into the 'Quebec bashing' debate. I think it would be better to try and make this article a reasonable discussion of the subject. Corlyon (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am not proposing to open a can of worms here. :-) I agree the priority should be to fix up what is already there. You see well started to accomplish this. All I mean is this: if you look at some of the most developed articles in the "Discrimination series" (like Anti-Arab sentiment, Anti-American sentiment), you see a certain structure. It does not make sense to fork the current content until we have something to replace it with. Eventually, when it is there, I think the part on Quebec bashing should be moved to its own article, leaving but a summary in Anti-Quebec sentiment, possibly under a "Contemporary" section or whatever. I do not see that happening anytime soon though: I am personally too busy with other articles (Bataille de Beauport, Siège de Québec de 1759) to do any serious work on this at the moment. I will however take the time to search for possible reference material and hopefully find books to start a "history of" section. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kristian Gravenor

A citizen of Quebec makes comments about how he is treated by the government of his province, which are published in a local 'alternative paper' and this is cited as an example of 'Quebec-bashing' in the context of an article dedicated to anti-Quebec sentiment/Quebec bashing in the general anglophone media? I don't understand this one. Was this example picked up by the broader media as an example of Quebec bashing? Was it used in the broader media to further criticize Quebec? If not, how can this incident be characterized as anything other than an example of a citizen reacting against a government policy that affects his commercial interests? The Mirror article was even vindicated by the Quebec Press Council. I don't see where this segment fits. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this: Conseil de presse du Québec - MIS-EN-CAUSE : Kristian Gravenor, journaliste, et 'Mirror' (Alastair Sutherland, rédacteur en chef).

I recommend you read Le français, une langue pour tout le monde, the report of the Estates-General on the Situation and Future of the French Language in Quebec, August 20, 2001, pages 184-185.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Merci, Mathieugp. I see now that I had misread the Kristian Gravenor section. There is a press controversy (albeit 'alternative') and some of the statements which I had mistakenly understood were coming from the business owner were in fact statements of the journalist contained in the press article.

Barbara Kay

Same comments as per Diane Francis. Important, pertinent, perhaps too long b/c os the extensive quotes, especially because there is another entire article on the topic. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Harper and the Almost-Coalition

Missing from the article is the controversy that erupted over Stephen Harper's remarks about the Bloc Québécois potential support for the Dion-Layton coalition. Mr. Harper was accused in the media (both languages) of engaging in rhetoric of the 'Quebec bashing' type. I am not determined that this should be included, but it seems of more note than some of the incidents that have been included. Corlyon (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Falardeau reference

I don't follow the reason for the inclusion of the following paragraph under "Themes" in the article: "Monsieur Pierre Falardeau, in his film Elvis Gratton, delivered a humorous parody of Quebec culture and American envy which was indeed a scathing parody of current Québécois. At the end of the film credits, a caption states 'peuple a genou, levez vous debout' (people on your knees, rise up!'. This reflects his desire for the Québécois to rise and form a nation." Pierre Falardeau is a filmmaker who (according to the article) made a film that was a parody of Quebecers. It was made by a Québécois about Québécois. It does not seem to have been made for the purpose of 'bashing' Quebec or Quebecers any more than the Bob and Doug McKenzie parody of English Canadians would be considered an attack against English Canadians. How is this pertinent? Corlyon (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not pertinent indeed. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will remove it. Corlyon (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not enough Quebec bashing

Quite frankly, the "quebecois" have been well treated. I am half French-Canadian myself. I have travelled in many countries and quite frankly, I have never met a people, more narrow-minded, more racist, more xenophobic and with so little latitude in behavior as the French-Canadians. These people have not been oppressed. Quite frankly, they have managed to get away with murder. If Quebec ever separated, the English-speaking minorities and even some French speaking minorities (like the people from Haiti and Lebanon) are in real danger of becoming dissidents and the Supreme court of Canada knows it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.181 (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

can you please take your hate elsewere? i am a french canadian and i do not hate english canada we just want to protect our culture from people like you who support the destrution of our people.*getting away with murder* when did we get away with murder? and what do you know of our history.

you are just a biased english who falsy claim to be half french just to give credit to your insulting comment.

you are the reason we will fight to the death! to gain freedom.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.223.192 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's people like you that make our motto right : I remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.221.134 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen much hate on this page until you showed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.227.51 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are CANADIANS. You are NOT French. You are not protecting any culture other than deliberately carrying on the ridiculous rivalry between England and France in the culture wars. You would have a fucking point if Quebec had not only refused to be multiligual (something Canada as a whole introduced specifically to cater to Quebec) but deliberately made learning English impossible for the children in their province. It's disgusting and pathetic. The total of Canada has tried repeatedly to find a middle ground with Quebec, even in the face of it's public cries that they would leave the nation. Catering to it's ridiculous attitudes and laws time and time again.

And what happens? Nothing. Quebec is given what it wanted, at the expense of the rest of Canada, and then refuses to live up to it's side of the bargain. And then Canada tries again, only to be met with Qubecs take take take attitude.

And you pitiful people have the gall to say it's the haters who are causing problem? Thank God im not Canadian, it would be a living hell to actually think Quebec will ever grow the fuck up and start working with the rest of it's people in Canada as a nation as a whole. 124.169.39.97 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

To the anonymous "Person from Perth (Western Australia)" -- your use of obscenities gives your country a bad name. I hope the rest of your compatriots show a better degree of civility than you, or your country is for the dogs. Given that you reside down under, I don't see how anything you say about the relationship between Quebec and the other provinces of Canada matters one iota. Whatever you say has no credibility on this issue. Hate alone is a sign of ignorance. How can you judge what is happening in Canada, when you don't even reside here? I don't live in Quebec, I am Canadian, and I don't see any problem with Quebec. The problem is with bigots like you when they spout off nonsense about a matter in which they have no business and about which they are totally ignorant. --Skol fir (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge to fight ignorance This horrible page is an excellent example of why Quebec needs protection. Whether you so desire or not, the francophone majority in Quebec has its own history parallel to Canada's. It fact, it is the French speaking people of Quebec that has first identified itself as a new nation, independent from Great Britain. Upper Canada has long thought of itself as part of the British empire while Lower Canada preferred the idea of an independent country. That ideology even survived the Federation in 1867 with all Canadians except Francophones willing to participate to the Boers war that the United Kingdom was fighting at the time in South Africa (essentially an imperialist war of conquest). Even in the first part of the 20th century Canadian nationalism was the main ideology of Francophones while the Anglophone majority had retained its colonial identity. This difference in ideas led to the conscription crises among other confrontations.

One has also to remember that Canada was French first. It was then conquered by Great Britain which then imposed strict legislation and institutions that were designed to assimilate the French speaking population of the newly formed province of Quebec. The Act of Union which derived from the Durham report was passed with the explicit intention of assimilation. The few gains the French people would obtain would be the result of the constant opposition of its leaders to brittish oppression. One should also note that this fight the French-Canadians fought led also to some very appreciable gains of democracy (ministerial responsibility). That particular era was one of cooperation of both founding peoples (they had no choice since they were forced by the political structure.

That would be all changed by the Constitutional Act of 1867. With additional English-speaking provinces, the new country would become largely Anglophone which in turn diminished the francophone minority's power and diluted its part of the common identity necessary to the construction of a true nation. Canada could have remained a hospitable home for Francophones, but the sort of fall in disgraced of the principle of the two founding nations (which implies equality among them) which culminated with the famous decisions of the supreme court has placed the francophone majority of Quebec in a very uneasy position. This was reinforced with a (I suspect deliberately) flawed federative system which made the federal Parliament (composed of a large majority of members that can't relate to the French-speaking minority's history and national identity) the sole possessor of any new competence. Another contributing factor is the federal power to spend however it desires in provincial jurisdictions (Which has the potential, coupled with unlimited power to tax, essentially bypass the distribution of legislative powers).

All those factors led to a more Quebec-centered nationalism as Quebecers acknowledged the fact that they could only participate in a marginal way to the federal Parliament, that said Parliament had the powers necessary to impose its views to all provinces, that English-speaking Canadians had a common history distinct from that of Quebec's francophone majority and that they had a different national identity.

It is also of interest to note that Quebec lost hundreds of thousands of its French-speaking citizens during the 19th century due to the economic and cultural attraction the united States exercised on the youth. Francophones are aware of this attraction the much larger English-speaking economies can still exercise. They are aware of the insidious economic means of assimilation (See Foundation by Asimov for a brilliant illustration). They have long known how important language, religion and culture are important to a nation's identity. This is why Francophones have fought and will (I hope) still fight for protections. This is why equality among provinces cannot work. This commentary is another example of why we cannot rely on Anglophones to guarantee our rights. This is why we reject the Constitution our representatives have not agreed to. One has to understand the history of a people to understand it. You just proved you don't. I hope for Wikipedia's sake that admins will be severe if they notice any form of partiality in articles related to Quebec's history. I fear that since those articles are written in English, the encyclopedia will not reflect the diversity of opinions on those matters. (I'm a Quebec nationalist, by the way, not a separatist, though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.64.41 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Olympics

So when do we mention the visible francophobia during the olympics in Vancouver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What about web forums?

A lot in this article suggests that Quebec-bashing is essentially a Quebec-based perception and not necessarily a reality. I find this unfair. One only needs to go on any English Canadian discussion forum on the web (National Post, CBC, Macleans.. pick em!) on a thread that deals with Quebec to see that Quebec bashing is alive and well. Any web discussion on Quebec is guaranteed to produce streams of very aggressive, ugly and bigoted anti-Quebec comments. The examples of "formal" Quebec-bashing in official newspaper articles are weak in comparison to the sort of abuse Quebecers take from ordinary anglo Canadian on web forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.227.51 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no choice but top agree with this guy here. I'm a bilingual Canadian, I've been around, and Quebec Bashing is quite real in Ontario and Montreal's West Island, at least. It definitely isn't just some frustrated quebequois nationalist perception. Dez26 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dez26 (talk • contribs)

I sometimes check out english journal's websites to get different POVs and have also been astounded by what I read in the comment sections. The worst I saw was in articles pertaining the attack attempt on our prime minister.

I just want to add that I (a french speaking Quebecker) have been very pleased to very rarely see Quebec bashing on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work guys!--Cairn2 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is hopeless

I'm not going to wade into this ash-heap, but this is, without question, one of the worst articles I've come across on Wikipedia. We should all be ashamed that such utter nonsense can continue to exist on an otherwise reputable site. This is the first time that I've completely written off an article as hopeless - there's just too much garbage to sift through and emotionally fraught editors to counter.

I'll just make two points, and never return here again:

1 - "Quebec bashing" is, for the most part, what a certain group of Quebecers call anything that is critical of Quebec that originates outside of Quebec. The general feeling that only Quebecers are entitled to observe problems in Quebec is terrifyingly closed-minded, and also one of the principle sources of Quebec's greatest failings (I say this as Quebecer). The attempt to equate "Quebec bashing" to anti-semitism is lame, small-spirited and defensive: consider too that "Quebec" as an institution or a government and not "Quebecers" is generally the object of so-called "Quebec bashing". That's hardly the case with anti-semitism.

2 - There is no corresponding term for when Quebecers criticize the rest of Canada, or minority segments of the Quebec population. Anyone who is serious about "Quebec bashing" would also have to recognize a concomitant seriousness in "rest-of-Canada bashing" and "English bashing." The fact that their myopia doesn't extend even that far is a pathetic condemnation of their xenophobic world view.

Geoff NoNick (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you fully understood this article, sir. "Quebec bashing" goes much further than simple outside criticism. (Even though, yeah, people will often overreact to that kind of stuff, sadly) Stuff like the whole Jan Wong affair goes much deeper than that. It reeks of bigotry and unfounded claims directly targetting cultural differences and using them in a negative light. This said, I do not believe the sentiment is as strong and widespread as some french language media would lead us to believe, but it is still very real. Dez26 21:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dez26 (talk • contribs)

I would argue that this article is perfectly valid. Regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) that you see in the concept of quebec-bashing, it is clearly enough of an issue and a controversy to warrant attention. And if quebecois xenophobism is a legitimate issue, then I welcome an article about that too. Bigdan201 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Maclean's and Quebec being the most corrupt province.

This case should be added. It as been depicted as "Quebec bashing" by many politician (including Michael Ignatieff, so stop saying that the expression is only used by some Quebeckers) and media. [2] [3] [4]

"'I don’t know the term in French, but [the Maclean’s article] is Québec bashing. I don’t like Quebec bashing either in English or in French. … You have to criticize corruption in public life. However, it’s important to do it throughout Canada. To say that it’s only a problem in Quebec –and that’s what the article suggests – I think that’s just Quebec bashing.'" - Michael Ignatieff [5] --Bob333333 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignatieff is right and we definitely need to give this guy a chance at the next elections. ;)

Seriously, though. I can't believe such a high profile magazine would make such outlandish claims and get away with it. As if corruption was only present in Quebec... Dez26 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dez26 (talk • contribs)

Yeux bridés

"I have closed this file," Andre Boisclair said later in French during a press briefing. "I understand that there is a difference between French and English in the use of this expression, and that the English is more pejorative, but I am not in linguistics- I am in politics." I do not see the point of this quote. Would someone explain it to me? Skol fir? --Popol0707 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Popol0707, I was just expanding on the information provided by the reference, which was in French. I translated it for the benefit of those who do not speak French, explaining Boisclair's view that this case was not an issue for him anymore, as he saw it as a misquote, taken out of context of linguistic differences between English and French. IOW, Boisclair got a raw deal from the English press. They unfairly blamed him for something he did not say. Is that clear now?

--Skol fir (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I'll see if I can find other quotes. Thanks. --Popol0707 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How is a political "faux-pas" said by a Quebec politician remarking that there were more people of asian descent in his studies in Boston possibly relate to the subject of negative sentiments towards Quebec? (131.137.245.207 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

huge problem

huge problem of neutrality in this article that reflects an ethnocentric point of view .. it doesn't honor wikipedia it looks more like a nationalist propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.147.157 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because the topic is controversial (depending on which side you are on), it does not mean that the coverage is ethnocentric. You are way off the mark here. This article presents a legitimate complaint from Quebeckers that they have been maligned at various times in Canadian history, and it is only fair that their complaints have a place in Wikipedia.

This article already makes many counter-arguments to outright "Quebec bashing." It is approaching a balanced coverage, so there is no need to panic. If you feel so strongly about it, then provide evidence that there has never been any "Quebec bashing." I am afraid you will not find that, because obviously it has occurred. The purpose of this article is to present the examples of "Quebec bashing," and to explain both sides of the argument. Certainly some of these examples show that there have been mistakes of interpretation on both sides of the story. --Skol fir (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

--Not a Wiki pro here, so bear with this sloppy suggestion: Having read Le Livre Noir du Canada Anglais (Lester), I think I can fairly safely say that unlike what's written in the page, many of the historical injustices listed in the book are not, in fact, "common knowledge" in "English Canada". At least, not outside more educated circles, and that's what all this is about. There's a fairly interesting to-and-fro of the more subtle sniping between media people and politicians, here, but very little of what most Quebecers refer to when they think of "quebec bashing". That is to say, the sort of things english canadians tourists will tell you they've been warned about, when talking to them on the bus in Quebec, for example, or things overheard in more english environments where people falsely assume there aren't any bilingual francophones who might be a bit peeved at what they hear. Unfortunately these are not incidents that can be backed up with quotes and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.168.173 (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV removed - cite needed deletes

I've removed the NPOV template and anything that did not have a cite, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. I found several citations quite easily, more effort is called for if this article is to improve. - RoyBoy 04:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)