Talk:Delisle–Richler controversy

Lionel Groulx
The entire section is nothing short of absurd. It is a mass of "citation needed" about a bunch of serious accusations. I already edited the Groulx article with an actual citation considering his view on antisemitism, which is actually referenced:

"L'antisémitisme, non seulement n'est pas une solution chrétienne; c'est une solution négative et niaise." ("Not only is antisemitism not a christian solution; it is a negative and silly solution.") ^ BRASSER, «Lionel Groulx», L'Action nationale, april 1993,; quoted by Gary CALDWELL, op.cit., p. 242.

I recommend rewriting the entire section to make it clear that these are not facts which are supported by historical records, but accusations by Delisle and Richler, and adding the above quote to the article so as to clarify Groulx's actual view on antisemitism. If nothing has changed within 48 hours, I'll take it upon myself to rewrite it. Akesgeroth (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally ignorant of this entire affair, I came to this Wikipedia page to learn about it. Too bad for me. This article is an embarrassment! I think I agree with Askegeroth's comments. But I think the ALLEGATIONS can be sourced to those making them, and not necessarily to Groulx. Groulx or his supporters should be sourced for RESPONSES to the allegations. But in either case, yes, sources are needed. The sentence A added about antisemitism being negative and silly does not in any way refute all these other (ridiculously unsourced) allegations. By analogy, a person might write that "pacifism" is negative and silly but they might at other times be found to state pacifist views. Before reading the talk page, I removed the blatant POV in the current ARTICLE that stated: "Note that almost none of the allegations are sourced." Yes, A, I agree that is an excellent point -- but the text of the article itself not the right place for it! David Couch (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird article which should not exist
This article should not exist at all. Delisle and Richler make for extremely strange bedfellows. Delisle is an accomplished scholar. Richler was a master entertainer.

Delisle offers a complex view on a complex subject: You have to be careful reading her since she has no easy answers.

Richler is always an easy read, always. I have read all his novels and short stories and a lot of his non-fiction. I have laughed through all of them. It's easy reading and good therapy. But he didn't understand a thing about Québec.

They don't belong together in the same article.--AlainV (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is Richler in this article?
Nowhere in this article, not in the introduction or any part of the body, is it made clear how Mordecai Richler is connected to the question of Lionel Groulx or the work of Esther Delisle. After the first sentence, Richler is never even mentioned in the same breath as Delisle or Groulx. The entire section on Richler doesn't mention Groulx or Delisle anywhere, nor does it even mention antisemitism in Quebec, which is the purported centrepiece of Richler's place in this controversy. The sources do not seem anywhere to cite anyone actually calling something a "Delisle-Richler controversy", and if anyone has actually spoken of such a thing outside this Wikipedia article, the article does not itself attest to that. This article needs to be substantively rewritten, and possibly considered for deletion and merging with either Delisle's article, Groulx's, Richler's, or some combination of those. Similar to AlainV's discussion post above, I'm not sure why this article exists. The text at the moment doesn't justify its own existence because it doesn't show how these disparate elements are actually connected, if they indeed are connected, and whether or not anyone has actually recognized and stated that there is such a connection. The Delisle section is the only section that hints at any connection at all between Delisle and Groulx, while suggesting no connection with Richler. The Groulx section talks only about Groulx. The Richler section talks only about Richler, who is not even vaguely hinted at in the other two sections. And then it ends. What is going on with this article? This feels like if someone made an article called The Ken Burns-Howard Zinn controversy that was just an intro saying "This is the name given by academics to the controversy over opinions about the American Civil War advanced by documentary filmmaker Ken Burns and historian Howard Zinn." then a section about what Howard Zinn said about Ulysses S. Grant, then a long final section that's just from the biography of Ulysses S. Grant, briefly interrupted by a totally random interpolation that says Ken Burns is a filmmaker who made a documentary about jazz. VolatileChemical (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)