User talk:Richardvdf

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 00:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charter of the French Language
I wanted to inform you that I will revert your modifications to the Charter of the French Language. I could't see how to incorporate the changes. We will have to cover the topic if the legal dispute around Bill 101 and its repercussion the press in a full article eventually. Are you interested in this subject? If you read French and English, we can both work on it.

I have tried to reply to your comment in the Talk:Charter of the French Language page of the article. In short, I am sorry, but what you have added is not accurate. After looking at your sources, I came to understand how you had become malinformed on the subject. The mass publications you cited are engaged in the political battle against Quebec and they are far from presenting an objective point of view on anything related to Quebec politics. You have to be careful to read what the French language press also prints on the same topic. Reading both is truly essential.

If the subject interests you as much as it interests me, I can point you to some must read information. Until I know if you can read French, here are the few rare educated opinions on the Charter that were published in English. However, opinions are what they are. Some basic notions of law, politics, history and linguistics are truly needed to be able to grasp the issue of linguistic management. Here are the links:


 * A Legal Opinion on International Law, Language and the Future of French-speaking Canada by Ramsey Clark
 * Ethical Reflections on Bill 101 by Gregory Baum
 * Why we need Bill 101 by the Mouvement estrien pour le français

Let me know what you think. -- Mathieugp 16:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How to reply
The reformatting you have made in the talk page makes it difficult to follow what I am replying to. It is very common to reply paragraph by paragraph like that like, for example in e-mails. This is the best method to refutate someone's arguments. You will get used to it after a while.

You wrote :

I can read French.


 * How well can you read it? -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''Until one of writes a full article on the opposition to Bill 101, it fits well under the category of 'Opposition.' Contrary to your opinion, my sources are accurate. ''


 * I have not said that your sources were innacurate, only the "information" they provide. An opinion cannot become valid or invalid. That is a misunderstanding of the very meaning of the word "opinion". An argument can be valid or invalid, not an opinion. Please, re-read what I have read carefully. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''They reflect a prominent minority opinion, which though you may disagree with, cannot be said to be invalid. ''


 * This argument commits a logical fallacy which we call Appeal to the majority or argumentum ad populum in Latin. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''You should note that B'nai B'rith is respected internationally as a group in support of the rights of Jews. ''


 * Judging the validity or invalidity of arguments, assertions, facts, or opinion on the merit or prestige of their source is a common fallacy which in English we call Appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam in Latin. The OLF is a government institution defending the rights of all Quebecers to live in French in North America, yet that doesn't make everything they say something we must believe blindly. The only judge is your own reason. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''The Gazette is one of Montreal's most read daily newspapers. The Mirror is a widely circulated alternative newspaper.''


 * This is very good. I can see at least three different types of fallacies. An Appeal to the majority, an Appeal to authority and an Argumentum ad nauseam. I had never seen that before. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like my political opinion, here it is: I agree with the need to support the French language in Quebec, but I don't believe the gestapo tactics of the language police can be justified in a democracy.

Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant. I am interested in an Encyclopedia with facts, not your or my opinions. Comparing the actions of the OLF with that of the Gestapo is a False analogy, an almost appeal to fear and an insult to I don't know how many civil servants who peacefully engage in research or compile complaints from customers. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But my political opinion, and yours, are irrelevant in ultimately considering how the article should be constituted.

Well well, we may be able to agree on something. I fully support this statement. I wrote it myself before I believe. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''In deleting a reference to a valid, minority point-of-view, you are showing a clear bias which harms the objectivity of the article. ''


 * Your assertion that your so-called minority POV is valid is not based on facts. Also, your POV is that of the majority of Canada, therefore it is not a minority POV. If your assertion was true, I would be willing to agree that deleting it was not very nice on my part. However, as I am trying very hard to point out, you cannot simply put all kinds of irrational BS inside an encyclopedia article just because similar opinions were printed numerous times in the Montreal Gazette and the other newspapers owned by Globals. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a medium for reproducing the official justifications of government policy; is it intended as a space to report objectively, and any reporting will show both positive and negative reactions to a given subject.

I agree with the first half. As for showing "positive" and "negative" reactions, it depends what you mean. Were you refering to some polls? I think stating the public opinion might be useful in a number of cases. However, if it is the case, then we really ought to reference the polls and explain what the poll question was. Otherwize, it is very easy for any poll to lead people to wrong conclusions. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until an article specifically on opposition is created, I will revert the page to its edited state.

You are of course free to act as a child if you want. Your proposition of an article on Quebec bashing is quite appealing. I am taking note of it. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you dispute the neutrality of the article, you are free to add a NPOV notice, but I think the article as a whole reflects both sides of the issue well.


 * I cannot agree here. This article is a meatless skeleton with some falsety bits added to it recently. There is a LOT of work to do. We have to write the History of Quebec French, elaborate on the legal battle engaged by fanatics against the Charter, build a timeline of all these events etc. We are not out of the woods! -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''You might consider adding a section which shows the wide support the Charter has among Francophones and the perceived good in forcing immigrants to school their children in French. ''


 * Showing that Quebecers are the overwhelming majority to support strong legislative measures to unanglicize their homeland would not realy help people understand what the Charter does, why it is there, why it is opposed and by whom etc. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, the law actually forces all Quebec children to go to the French education system until the age of 16. An exception is made for the children of the English-speaking minority of Quebec. In Ontario, children are also forced to go to school until the age of 16, but since going to French school is not a viable option (there is not even one university), there never really was a need to explicitly direct immigrant children to English schools. Funny how your statement made this reality look sooo bad... -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is unlikely that one of us will convince the other that his point of view is correct, we should be able to have an article that does not dogmatically mirror the views of the Québec government.


 * I disagree. All points of view are important to get the global picture. Even if it is not very enlightened, your point of view is explainable and must be accounted for. I am convinced that both or POV are correct. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''In quoting popular sources, I was trying to represent opposition to the Charter of the French language, not analyse whether that opposition is valid from a sociolinguistic perspective. Though the Montreal English press and B'nai B'rith aren't authoritative sources on sociology or linguistics, they do reflect the point of view of a prominent minority. Surely you cannot deny that. ''


 * I do not know what a "prominent" minority is. I know who the people who have spread these innacuracies are, but I am not certain I would call them "prominent". Maybe pro-status-quo? No, I cannot deny that disinformation is a problem in most Western societies. That is no reason to participate to spreading ignorance even more by writing it inside Encyclopedias. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply to your reply
You wrote :

''Also, just to refute some of your points: "Language police" is the commonly accepted term in the English language media throughout Canada, including the non-corporate CBC. ''


 * It doesn't change the fact that it is intentionally trying to make it look as tough there was a police force arrresting people who don't speak French. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''I think, in that they that enforce provisions of the language law by ensuring things like font compliance (French lettering must be twice as big as non-French) and that all shopkeepers can speak French, the name and its pejorative connotation are deserved. ''


 * The whole issue of letter mesuring only exists because the Supreme Court of Canada suggested that it was not legitimate to require French only exterior commercial signs but legitimate to require that French be predominant in the public space. To comply with this, an amendment was passed to the Charter to state that exterior commercial signs had to show a net predominence of French. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The OLF receives complaints. After they have received complaints from people who expected to be able to be served in French but ended up being told to speak English, they call the shop owner. In the overwhelming majority of cases (which the OLF compiles), the shop owner accepts the assistance the OLF has to offer (translating brochures, menus, interior signs etc) and end up hiring some bilingual youngster (often, an Anglo-Quebecer nowadays). In very rare cases, some shop owners tells them to fuck off. The minute after, Howard Galganov is there to the rescue, to save ye poor old immigrant to defend his right to speak English to Quebecers. Oups, I mean to fend off the evil totalitarian OLF gestapo.


 * No, in all honesty, you have to be dishonest to refer to the OLF (a bunch of bureaucrats if you want my opinion) as a language police. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''Nowhere else in North America does any agency regulate the signage or speech proficiency of non-majority speakers, which is why in Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, Vancouver and myriad other cities you'll find neighbourhoods whose inhabitants cannot speak English and whose shops cater to these inhabitants with large, non-English signs. ''


 * We also have immigrants who do not speak neither English nor French. We also have refugees. This reality invalidates your statement completely. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What they have in Quebec is a humanistic approach to welcoming immigrants. They don't expect them to fight and survive in a capitalist jungle that will inevitably force them to speak English over time. They use their tax money to provide free French classes, free assistance to find employment and support to integrate the society they have chosen to move into. Maybe because Quebecers have suffered massive laissez-faire type assimilated for two centuries themselves, they know that this is not an acceptable way to treat human being. In Quebec, they protect the right to education and the right to work and believe in something called equality of chances. In Quebec, this requires learning French. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''Ethnic neighbourhoods in New York, for example, are immediately distinguished from those in Montreal by the presence of prominent signs in languages other than English. In Little Korea, one of the many Chinatowns, Spanish Harlem, West Harlem, to name a few, one can find businesses and community organizations whose operators do not speak the language of the majority.''


 * In Montreal, they have La petite Italie, le Quartier chinois, le Quartier latin and have by far the best ethnic restaurants (because Quebecers have a more european culture I guess). They also have getthos of sort, but because the Quebec government fight social inequalities, the level of integration is quite good. The problem is that the integration is not always done in French because of the competition with English. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''The most recent report of the OQLF _does_ comment on the prevalence of languages other than French in households in Montreal as a problem. Here's a quote:

En ce qui a trait à la langue d'usage de 1991 a 2001, le pourcentage de locuteurs fracophones semble être demeuré stable dans l'ensemble du Québec (83%), alors que celui des locuteurs anglophones a diminué pour passer de 11,2% à 10,5%. Le nombre de personnes qui utilisent le français au foyer est donc plus important que le nombre de personnes de langue maternelle française. Cependant, l'anglais comme langue d'usage continue à faire des gains de l'order de 2 %, alors que ceux du français ne dépassent pas 1,7 %. Ces gains sont d'autant plus préoccupants qu'en 2001, l'anglais est utilisé seul ou avec d'autres langues dans au moins un foyer sur trois dans l'île de Montréal (35,7 %), le français étant pour sa part utilisé dans deux foyers sur trois (66,6%).

(Rapport annuel de gestion 2003-2004, Office québécois de la langue française, p. 13)''


 * This passage makes it very clear that even though it is the native language of less than 10% of the population, English made some gains as a language of use. They say that in the 1991 to 2001 period, English progressed by 2% while French progressed by 1,7%. They say that even more worrisome is the fact that in 2001, English was used alone or with another language in 35.7% of Montreal households. So 35.7% of people are on their way or have already adopted English as their language of use. This means that after 30 years of Bill 101, Quebec is not even remotely close to the mininal 80% of linguistic transfers required to maintain French in the long run. In comparison, globally over 95% of linguistic transfers go to English in the rest of Canada and the US. If Quebec had these figures, there would be no language issue in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''I would suggest, as an opinion on the Charter of the French language and the point you made about the importance of the "language of promotion," that the Official Languages Act (of Canada) in tandem with the gains made the Charter of the French Language, is moving Canada towards a state in which competence in both languages is to some extent necessary for socioeconomic promotion (particularly in the federal service). ''


 * Not true. Quebec was largely bilingual English French in the beginning, before Bill 101. Since then, it has switched to French only in the areas far from Montreal, to French-English in Montreal (with some areas still almost not affected by French at all). The federal laws has prevented the Quebec law from being truly effective.


 * Requiring competence in French as well as English for federal jobs has changed nothing in Quebec, gave jobs to Franco-Ontarians and made many unilingual Anglophones angry. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Greater integration of commerce between Quebec and the rest of Canada is, I think, a means of ensuring that bilingualism becomes a prerequisite for citizens who wish to occupy the upper echelons of society.


 * Since the passing of the Free Trade agreement between Canada and the US, Quebec exports to Ontario have become less and less important while ties with the US have increased. This has been very good for Quebec (and Ontario and Alberta) but has not changed the fact that Quebec has too weak domestic capital and depends on foreign investors too much. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, bilingualism will never be a prerequisite in Quebec otherwize we have no chance of saving our language at all. Our ability to adapt to rapic capitalism-driven social changes all the while preserving our national culture will be either destroyed or saved by information technologies. We are hoping for the best. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions
''Your comments on fallacies are irrelevant. ''

Are they? Maybe I was wrong in thinking fallacies did not belong in Wikipedia. We can ask the community and see what they think. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not arguing in favour or against of the Charter of the French langauge, I am merely reporting on opposition to it.


 * Your section on the opposition to the Charter by the owners of most corporate media in English Canada was worded in such as way that I found it impossible to integrate into the article. That's why I had to take it away. I cannot and am not opposed to mentionning somewhere (most logically in the article on the OLF not in the one on the Charter) that after being fed false information and being presented a distorted picture of Quebec for many years, many members of Quebec society (and observers from outside) whose knowledge of French is none or poor are opposed to the actions of the evil OLF. Personnally, if I was not aware of the other side's point of view, if I thought that the way the OLF was presented was in any way connected to reality, I would also hate that institution. If I were a Canadian patriot, I would hate it even more knowing that it is evil separatists from the evil social-democrat PQ who gave it that mission. No, I do not object to anyone writing this (hopefully in a much less sarcastic and voltarian way! ;-) -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will soon contain an article on the subject of the fear campain (conducted by Ottawa and its circle of corporate friends) against the Evil Separatist Movement (tm) of Quebec. The whole issue of how the OLF's "actions" were covered in media owned by contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada will fit right in. Will also fit the sponsorship scandal and the 1995 referendum fraud. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''If you'll read the style guides for Wikipedia, you'll note that Wikipedia doesn't aim to present essays. ''


 * Really, I should be the one explaining that to you! You believe that putting the lies of one side is OK if we also put the lies of the other side. I believe that lies do not belong here and the article must remain objective (even if it means to be a boring article stating just facts and containing zero amount of sensationalism.) -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It aims to present reports, and I am reporting on widespread opposition to the French charter in non-Francophone communities.


 * And this claim is supported by what? I think you are mixing up "non-Francophones" with "unilingual anglophones and anglicized immigrants who blindly believe in what they read in The Montreal Gazette AND never bothered to have a conversation with an evil sovereigntist". -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''To be more specific, so that you'll understand: I am not representing arguments against the French Charter. I am representing opinions held by groups. I have no need to prove that those opinions are rational, simply that they exist, which they obviously do. I could find ten thousand newspaper articles that show Anglo and immigrant discontent with 101. ''

How many thousands articles? I think you may be exaggerating which is what this fear campain is all about. You can find Anglo-Canadians who hate Bill 101. Fine. I can find half a million Anglo-Quebecers who live in Quebec and after learning a little French discovered nobody hated them. You can find anglicized immigrants who belive in the same lies you believe in. Fine. I can find francized immigrants who believe in the lies we believe in. In the end, what is important is to inform people of the facts and figures behind this silly "my nationalism is better than yours" battle so that they can make up their own mind on the subject (if they do actually care to do so). -- Mathieugp

You, I note, have not found one reference to support your dogmatic rendering of party line bullshit.


 * What party line bullshit? Can you give me a quote of some sort because I am not following you? How would my supposed "dogmatic rendering of party line bullshit" fit into an article detailing how Quebec uses a legal intrument to prevent the assimilation of its own people? -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Charter of the French Language article is not the place to treat the subject of the political war going on between Canadian nationalists and Quebec nationalists. You should be mature enough to understand this. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''you have clearly never left Quebec for any appreciable amount of time. I can see by this statement:''

''Also, the law actually forces all Quebec children to go to the French education system until the age of 16. An exception is made for the children of the English-speaking minority of Quebec. In Ontario, children are also forced to go to school until the age of 16, but since going to French school is not a viable option (there is not even one university), there never really was a need to explicitly direct immigrant children to English schools. Funny how your statement made this reality look sooo bad... ''


 * Once again, your conclusion is not backed by a valid argument. My statement doesn't proove what you claim it is prooving. In reality, I lived in Calgary, Alberta for some 4 years. I studied at SAIT where I got something they called a "Computer technology diploma". I learned the English I know while living there. When I moved there, I could have gone to Sainte-Marguerite Bourgeois high school, the sole French language grade 1 to 12 school in area, but since I intended to learn English, I went to St. Francis high school (my father was baptised catholic unlike me, so I was able to get in.) The situation of the French language in Western Canada resembles that of most native American languages. Rapid and irreversible anglicization.-- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''that you do not know that, even in unilingual Edmonton, of all cities, children have the option of being educated exclusively in French. In fact, many Anglophone parents send their children to these schools. ''


 * You are confused here. There are numerous bilingual schools, indeed used by Anglophone parents to try to teach French as a second language to their children. That doesn't change anything to the facts I have stated before. Of all provinces, Alberta has the highest assimilation rate of its francophone minority. That's too bad, but that how it is. Since the enactment of the Law on Official Languages by Ottawa, the assimilation rate has increased. That is also an undeniable fact. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should also note that Edmonton, of all cities, has a University faculty that grants French degrees (Faculte St. Jean).


 * What university in the world doesn't have a foreign language faculty? -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''Oh, and this was great: "No, I cannot deny that disinformation is a problem in most Western societies" And you wonder why people think the PQ has totalitarian leanings. Where did you pick that sentiment up? 1984?''

Hehe! That's funny. Are you accusing me of being communist or something silly like that? -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''Well, much as I support your attempt to monopolize the truth, I'm going to have ask that the article be protected. ''


 * And I am going to watch. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)