Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Solitudes (Canadian society)


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

The result was   keep. –MuZemike 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Two Solitudes (Canadian society)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tagged for notability since January 2010. Appears to be a turn of phrase rather than a socio-political analysis; as well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Social Sciences. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on the person who said it. It should also be mentioned in the article on the issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I started the article when I heard on the radio that Michaëlle Jean had used the term in her first address as Governor General of Canada. I can't find the transcript for this, unfortunately. The refs, such as they are, would point to an earlier origin of the term, one that she mentioned, and it would seem that a merge to her article would not appear to be the preferable result for this AfD.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The person that coined the term is whom I believe Steve Dufour is refering to ...Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - clearly notable per substantial media references -- hundreds of mentions over the years.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment a more truthful search would be  with 1/10 of the WP:GNUM Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some comments on Google searches:
 * Your Google.ca search is a general web search for "Two Solitudes" Anglophone OR Francophone.  Arguably, some non-Canadian media might not use "-phone" terms; while valid words, they are not as widely used outside Canada. An American or Australian newspaper might use "English-speaking" and "French-speaking" instead.
 * My Google.com search was for "Two Solitudes"  only in Google News (both current and archives); this is a better source of references that meet our reliable sources requirements than a general web search. Even if only 1/10 of these hits refer to the concept of this article and not the book or some other usage of the phrase, that still leaves us with dozens of news articles citing this idea. That's a lot and certainly much more than enough to meet our notability requirements.
 * Google Scholar, another source of authoritative references, turns up hundreds of hits in the 2 languages when I search for "Two Solitudes" Canada  on Google.ca's Google Scholar site.
 * "Two Solitudes" is a very distinctive phrase; I don't think I've ever heard it in anything other than a Canadian context.
 * In looking at Google search results, it's important to look at the quality of the results. 2 authoritative sources meeting our reliable sources requirements trump 1000 blog references. I encourage folks to sample some of the individual hits in the Google.com results I've provided here and in my earlier comments.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, people should evaluate every Source for relevance rather than rely on WP:GHITS. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge&Redir to Criticism of multiculturalism. Same concept, different words. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that a better merge/redirect candidate might be Multiculturalism_in_Canada, eh?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I personaly do not believe so. 2 Solitudes inherently refers to a criticism of how it is... but ... we will let consensus decide. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * no not merge into Criticism of multiculturalism or Multiculturalism_in_Canada since this goes to the fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis, rather than the policy of multicultrualism in modern Canada. Keep since this political concept is frequently in the news and in research, as well as in Canadian popular culture, per the many RSes that various people have previously indicated in this AFD. It is not criticism of multiculturalism since it is a term used to indicate the lack of cross-cultural communication between the two founding groups of European colonists who founded Canada, which predate the policies of multiculturalism. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "political concept" is a criticism of Multiculturalism. This was a simplified way of defining a complex political concept in terms the masses could understand. Would this article not be violating NotInherited since it was coined from a Novel, and again later, from a Film Title? What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality described by the term "two solitudes" existed before the policies of multiculturalism were enacted. The novel the term derives from only labels a reality that existed before the novel's creation. The novel, created in 1945, predates multiculturalism policies by three decades. Your statement that it is a criticism of multiculturalism seems faulty. The "two solitudes" have existed since Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, in the 1750s. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply because this term predated the current "political concept" does not change the fact that they are still talking about the same "political concept". Who cares if the novel predates the concept. That only signifies the incubation period for the concept to crystallize and become properly named. The term Black hole went through the same process (originally called a Dark Star), but it was still the same thing. What are people describing when they use this term?
 * No, a black hole is not a dark star (Newtonian mechanics). Did you know what you were using as an analogy before using them? A dark star is an object with a definite surface, which is still a star, but whose escape velocity is greater than light speed, a black hole is a singularity, a totally different concept.
 * We know that now, yes... but in 1796 they were all 1 thing. Names may change, but the concept is the same. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually it isn't. There are many concepts that are similar to black holes, some of which have solid surfaces, a black hole is not one of them, a dark star is. They only way they could be said to be the same concept is if you ignore all the properties of these two classes of objects and only focus on the escape velocity being greater than lightspeed. Are you doing that with "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes"? Only focusing on a single aspect, without looking at any other aspect? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If your actually going to continue this point, I will refine it then. In 1796, the only concept they had to describe a class of objects was as "a gravity well so strong light could not escape". They did not have the science to distinguish the differences your argument assumes that they did. With "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" I am wanting to find a policy based reason to keep the Article after finding "What are people describing when they use this term??". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the policy of multiculturalism was created by the Trudeau government. Trudeau was not Prime Minister in the 1940's, he became PM in the 1970's. The term "two solitudes" was applied to an existing political reality, the two non-interacting communities of francophones and anglophones, that inhabitted Upper Canada and Lower Canada. There was no real "multiculturalism" in the environment prior to the 1960's. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A policy with that name was created then yes. But it was not created because of a sudden, new problem. The situation had been in existance long before the policy gave it an official name. Just because they gave it a official name does not mean they were talking about something different, or else the Policy would have been called 2Solitudes. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering what "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" signifies, are you being facetious? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep..dont think it should be merged...So i guess a stand alone article it is in my opinion. Article needs lots of work as its just a baby stub..but i think its notable as per news.google.com "Two Solitudes"  specifically the  amount of time that is covered by this  topic over 300 years and what i find with -->.....Moxy (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I tried to point out earlier, A Google search for something like this term is very difficult. The search you have just provided does not focus on this term's meaning. It is also bringing in every person that has ever used the term in another context, Photograph title/caption, 2 sides of something/anything, every review of the Book and/or Film and every bibliography of Mr. MacLennan, whom was a Cultural icon of Canadian history, and widely discussed in a variety of forums and contexts. In my view, just pointing to a WP:Bignumber in Google on this topic runs deeply afoul of WP:GYNOT & WP:COMMONPHRASE. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat to see someone comment on everyone comments...The problem i have is that Redirects do not show-up in Internet search (they are not categorized) ....So unless we have that article title ..noone will ever come to Wikipidia to find out about the topic..So in the interests of the encyclopedia and the fact that are main principle is to spread knowledge...I say keep it as per Ignore all rules because what is being proposed here will not help our readers and in fact will make sure they dont come to wiki to find knowledge on this topic. In the old days of Wiki this would have been  filled under common sense....There are rules for everything that must be implemented in a way to help our readers not drive them away. Moxy (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exit2DOS2000, we did read your comments about Google searches earlier -- "As I tried to point out earlier…", "a more truthful search would be…" (personally, as the person posting the presumably "less truthful" search, that comment kind of stung) . I posted those Google searches primarily for their content -- their lists of potentially useful links -- not for their numbers. And yes, the majority of these links such as your picture caption are not relevant but 1/10 of a large number still yields a rich list. Skimming that remaining tenth indicates there are many articles and scholarly papers that specifically look at the Two Solitudes concept, usually for English/French Canadian societies but sometimes extending it to the Anglo/First Nations divide. While the article is just a stub, Two Solitudes is a concept, not just a definition, which needs expansion, not elimination. This article needs similar treatment to that of the US' "Melting pot" and other, analogous concepts covered in substantive articles such as "Hyphenated American", "More Irish than the Irish themselves","Bangsa Malaysia", "Generation gap", etc. -- that is, unless we want to do away with those articles, too. There's a reason the Governor-General's use of that phrase and concept was instantly resonant for millions of Canadians. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is what I do not believe others understand. Various !votes opine "Two Solitudes is a concept", it is not the concept. Multiculturalism is the concept. "Two Solitudes" was the term a man unwittingly coined in his criticism of the situation as he saw it. Just because the term Multiculturalism was not in use at that time makes no difference. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, multiculturalism is a different concept. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please, explain the differences in such terms that make one independantly notable and distinct from the other. So far, nobody has put forth a definition that is distinct from Multiculturalism, and I do not believe it can, thus my merge. Not every term smart people coin, deserves its own Article. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you been reading what people have been writing here? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup and so far their has been "fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis", "its notable as per news.google.com", "Redirects do not show-up in Internet search", "referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship", "iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase" and "multiculturalism is a different concept", but not a single explanation of what it's distinction from Multiculteralism is, nor even a policy/essay amongst the lot. (exept WP:IAR). Nobody has given a basic awnser to the one question I have asked all along, What are people describing when they use this term? All pretty good reasons in my mind to now lable it WP:Fancruft of Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SO we have all given a reason Y it should not be deleted (you simply ignore them or find ways to dismiss them) you keep saying again and again and again the same thing..You seem to think that your view is more important then all the others here and now if things dont go your way you plan to subvert this community decision by tagging the article. So realy your main goal is to delete  articles from Wikipidia in any way possible regardless of what this community decision is?  You my friend need to read Reasonability Rule.  Multiculturalism deals with all the ethnic groups as a whole and the policies....  Two Solitudes is a term for just what has been happing between the English and French for centuries and would be the opposite of  multiculturalism in its affect  on Canadian culture. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not be repeating myself if someone would give a clear, concise, explanation of What are people describing when they use this term? that stands up to scrutiny. I do not think my view is more important, I simply will not be browbeaten into accepting arguments that have no merit or contradict one another. What have I tagged? I voted for Merge, not delete or did you just not care to notice that fact. What in Reasonability Rules do you believe I have contraviened? Did you mean "it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Wikipedia policies" (AHEM... WP:NPA Comment on the content, not on the contributor) Your last sentence contradicts itself. Clarify the thought, find a Cite, and put it in the Article, something anyone here has yet to do. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if we show you a link or two or three we  will not agree on this as you have invested so much time and effort into your point. I should have jumped out of this long ago as the others did and  should have let the votes speak for the majority view. BTW heres a copy of the book Two Solitudes its a good read a will help clarify the situation alot. This book and its topic  we studied  at the High school level in Canada during the 1980's and it looks like its   still a part of the curriculum in some schools. Moxy (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This could easily develop into a solid article. It's frequently referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship and it's been the basis of much scholarly work. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism and merging is even worse than deletion. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I can't see any good reason why this was even proposed for deletion....now axiomatic and iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase and as an idea.Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.