Talk:Quiet Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Quebec, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Quebec. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute to more articles. |
Could I ask JillandJack why you removed "Historians have referred to this period as the Grande noirceur (Great Darkness), but most will add that this period is often perceived as worse than it was"? Do you dispute that historians have used this term? That they believe the period is often perceived as worse than it was? HistoryBA 00:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Vive le Québec Libre!
Another question for JillandJack: why is the Vive le Québec libre speech not relevant in an article on the Quiet Revolution? HistoryBA 00:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Various POV issues with recent edits by JillandJack
- Because the time frame represents a period of sustained terrorist bombings, robberies, and murders culminating with the kidnapping and assassination of Quebec Vice-Premier Pierre Laporte and the kidnapping of the British Trade Commissioner, James Cross, to many Canadians the term "Quiet" is seen as something of an oxymoron.
This sentence not only contains inapropriate non-neutral language, it also introduces a personal opinion which the author attributes to "many" Canadians. Many historical periods overlap, one starting before the previous one ends. Indeed, many people relatively knowledgeable of the Octobre Crisis but unaware of the Quiet revolution might be surprised by the term "Quiet". This remark is welcomed in the talk page, but is not relevant in the first paragraph of this article.
- The term "Quiet Revolution" was supposed to signify peaceful changes that, because of the terroism, was very much noticed in the rest of Canada.
There is problem here. The changes brought by the Quiet revolution and the changes brought by the terrorist actions of the FLQ are not the same and not related at all. This comment is again the opinion of its author and is far from being relevant to the article.
- This valid paragraph:
The province's natural resources were sold to foreign investors; iron being infamously sold to the U.S.-based Iron Ore Company for one cent a ton. Only 50% of the province's population had attended secondary school, and the salary discrepancy between francophones and anglophones was considerable (in favor of the anglophones). Historians have referred to this period as the Grande noirceur (Great Darkness), but most will add that this period is often perceived as worse than it was.
- Was replaced by what appears to be the prejudiced opinion of the author on the subject:
Because of the agrarian, anti-business policies of the Roman Catholic Church that had been rigidly in place since the beginning, it was English immigrants, notably the Scotch Quebecers who invested and built the Qjuebec industrialized economy, making it the foremost economic center in Canada and a major force in North america. However, the Roman Catholic Church led the rejection of an industrialization effort by former Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau. Because of the failure of the ensuing Duplessis government of Quebec to promote business and to establish university business training for francophones to match the rest of Canada and the U.S., the income levels between rural French workers and those in the business world began to widen at a time when Canada was looking to grow. he country followed the massive industrialization and technological innovations going on in the United States while trying to cope with the Great Depression. Because French-Canadians chose not participate in business solutions to, it increased the number of Canadians from other provinces of Canada willing to fill the void.
These "explanations" not only fall short of providing answers to the many questions being asked in the 1960s, they are severly biased against Quebec's Franco Catholic majority. The problems of Quebec are blamed on Quebecers alone, ignoring the fact that Quebec was colonized by a foreign power much like Ireland.
- This valid paragraph:
To this day, the issue of a special status for Quebec within the Canadian Confederation or the attainment of sovereignty of this state is the subject of a fundamental and still unresolved debate. Since the end of the Second World War, Canada has lived through multiple failed attempts at reforming its constitution to accommodate Quebec while two referendums on Quebec's independence were rejected by a majority of Quebec voters.
- Was replaced again by what appears to be some justifications of events by the modifications' author:
To this day, the issue of a special status for Quebec within the Canadian Confederation or the attainment of sovereignty for the province is the subject of a fundamental and still unresolved debate by sovereignists while the majority of Quebecs have grown tired iof the issue. Since the end of World War II, the Government of Canada, led by Prime Ministers from Quebec have made many changes to work with Quebec including the entrenchment of the French language into the Constitution. Multiple attempts failed at reforming the Canadian constitution to accommodate Quebec sovereignists, while two referendums on Quebec's independence were rejected by a majority of Quebec voters.
Extremely biased an irrational, there is hardly anything there that could be defended.
- This paragraph was added:
Despite the continuing disagreements between federalists and sovereignists, Quebec has progressed since the Quiet Revolution but the uncertainty caused by the threat of an independence vote has limited the type of business willing to invest in Quebec. The flight of capital and emigration of more than 4000,000 anglo/allophones following the 1976 election of the separatrist Part Quebecos goveerment severely hurt the provinces economy. Unemployment remains much higher than the national average, and the limitations on business by provincial language laws is a reality that restricts both expansion and investment. With the Roman Catholic Church no longer in control of education and with virtually no control over their lives, the Quebec.
Again extremely biased, this one paragraph includes various myths on Quebec. The mass exodus of 400,000 Quebecers being blamed solely on the 1976 election, the unemployement rate being much higher in Quebec than elsewhere in the federation, the negative effect of Quebec's language policy on the economy are all fabricated myths that can be proven innacurate by a simple look at the facts.
- This paragraph was added:
Nevertheless, it would be almost twenty years later when quality business programs were put in place in Quebec's French-language universitie that would equal those of universities elsewhere in North America.
This assertion is likely to be wrong on the facts, but I would have to verify. In any case, this would most likely be a matter of opinion. Are there good measurable indicators of the quality of programs in one university versus another? How do we evaluate this?
Can we discuss this modifications so we can fix/remove them? -- Mathieugp 20:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- JillandJack seem determined to revert any changes with which they disagree and not to engage in any discussion. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia dispute resolution -- I've never had to use it before -- but I wonder if this is an appropriate time to invoke it. Can anyone offer some advice? (The problems are with this article, the Jean Marchand article, and a few others.) HistoryBA 22:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, his changes are still in the article, so yes it would be time to have this dispute moderated. I've seen a few other disputes on the site, and the situation in those was pretty similar to this one. If the JillandJack still won't show up to defend his reverts then he could be banned from these articles. Red Star
-
- I agree with all the comments/complaints made by Mathieugp, hopefully this article can be kept NPOV. Dan Carkner 15:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Provincial equivalent of Nationalization
Power firms (etc.) were nationalized -- but not to the federal (used to be 'confederational,' to distinguish it from the US of A) government of Canada, only to the government of the province of Quebec. I read that there was some textual difficulty because Canada is divided into "provinces," so the natural form would be "provincialized," though this has the connotation "made real hick and without any urbane sentiment." Could someone put together a nice phrase to explain this? --Sobolewski 20:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Frère Untel
"Les insolences du Frère Untel (the impertinences of Brother Somebody), which criticized the near absolute dominance of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec." This could lead to think that the book of Frère Untel criticized the dominance of the Church, which is not the case. This book actually criticized the way people spoke and used French, and, i'm not sure for this part, the way it was taught.
[edit] I have never...
...read such a load of drivel like this in my life. I lived through this period in Quebec's history, and I felt that I was reading a discription of events from some alternate universe! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.164.4.52 (talk • contribs).
- I have not...
- ...understood your unexposed point! What is your opposition; what is this horrendous "drivel"? Also, please sign your post, as Wikipedia politely demands. --Liberlogos 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the first comment. This article is confusing, shows different bias in different sections, most sections are not NPOV. The Jill&Jack revisionism/opinions/vandalism is still present. Also, the reference to the Duplessis Orphans is brought in in a very clumsy way that is very misleading. Everything was far from perfect during the Duplessis regime but reducing the health care and education work of the catholic church of the time to the example of the Duplessis Orphans is disconnected from reality. It may not have been the intent of the editor but it is the result. A very big cleanup of the whole article is needed here.
[edit] Probably already noted...
...but "JillandJack" is/was a sockpuppet of a banned user. If you find poor prose of theirs in this articel (That managed to survive this long), have no hesitation about rewriting it wholesale or just revoking it. 68.39.174.238 07:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United Providence?
From the header: "The creation of a United Providence, or État-Providence (welfare state)."
Is 'United Providence' an actual term used in Quebec? - because the correct translation of État-Providence is 'welfare state', as the article already says. ObeliskBJMtalk 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
