Talk:Michaud Affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I've removed of this article because it is a copyrighted text taken straight from http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/michaud.htm Ironically (not really), the only part that Angelique didn't copy-and-paste was the bit that gave a bit more context to the remark. If an original version is to be added it is necessary to be objective and add the following information:

a) Put his comments in context
b) The Parti Québécois and the National Assembly condemned his comments;
c) 3 out of 4 Quebecers were against his statements;
d) Later, the director of the Quebec chapter of B'nai Brith, Robert Libman, said that Michaud's words had been incredibly distorted and that he didn't think he was an anti-semite. He even stated that Quebec was the least anti-semitic province in Canada - and that all the anti-semitic inscriptions found in Quebec by B'nai Brith were written in English. Tremblay 06:15, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


There is no copyright violation of any kind on my part. And, inserting unsubstantiated quotes said to be of Robert Libman is unacceptable. Please insert documented facts. What the racist, bigot, Yves Michaud said on Radio and in Public is fact. Reverted. Angelique 16:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Again, as mentioned above, I removed the undocumented statement attributed to Robert Libman, the man who filed the racism charges against the Honourable Mr. Michaud. Angelique 19:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

    • Quote from Robert Libman during the interview: "Aujourd'hui, si l'on regarde ailleurs dans le pays, c'est très clair que le Québec est probablement la province la moins antisémite. Toutes les inscriptions antisémites qu'on a trouvées au Québec sont en anglais; ça dit quelque chose."
    • Translation: "Today, if we look elsewhere in the country, it is very clear that Quebec is probably the least antisemitic province. All the antisemitic writtings that we found in Quebec were in English; that says something." -- Mathieugp 20:38, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And so were the anti-English writings in Wikipedia ! Angelique 20:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The majority of Wikipedia members and visitors are anglophones. The majority of the people who live in Quebec are francophones. That says something. -- Mathieugp 20:50, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but User:Mathieugp can write in English, can't he? Now where in this does Mr. Libman say what you asserted he said: that the condemned (by the National Assembly) racist Yves Michaud is not racist? Angelique
I apologize for speaking only two of Canada's official languages. ;-) Here is the quote in French: "Depuis le déclenchement des événements, la parole de monsieur Michaud a été déformée de façon incroyable. Les gens l'accusent de minimiser l'Holocauste, alors qu'il n'a jamais fait ça. On l'accuse aussi d'être antisémite. Moi, je pense qu'il ne l'est pas."
Translation: "Since the beginning of the events, the words of Mr Michaud were deformed in an incredible way. People accuse him to have minimized the Holocaust, when in fact he never did that. We also accuse him to be anti-semite. Me, I think that he isn't one." -- Mathieugp 21:23, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Methinks this is not an interview with Robert Libman, but only what Georges Boulanger claims he said. Sorry, this is not valid, it is called heresay. Angelique the brainwashed moron

Do you just believe things you want to believe? I guess every journalist who's ever quoted anyone is just "claiming they said that," right Angelique? This is ridiculous. Tremblay 22:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your friends so-called website ($8.00 a month and you are a "journalist"), with nothing more than diatribes, has about as much credibility as a dead mouse. Angelique the brainwashed moron

Huh? Do you even know what you're talking about? Le Voir is a printed newspaper, not a website... Tremblay 00:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Essentially all that you entered on Quebec in this encyclopedia is the opinion of right-wing culumnists from the Globe & Mail, The Toronto Star, The National Post and The Montreal Gazette Angelique. You would benefit a lot by learning to read French and be able to compare these opinions with what is written in both right and left wing French language newspapers in Quebec. You would see how the same facts can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what we choose to emphasize. The "heresay" of Boulanger was not contested by Robert Libman, nor any other person before you. However, the Quebec bashing press chose to ignore it as it might have helped some open-minded Anglo-Canadians to see the other side of the medal. -- Mathieugp 23:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The number and kind of newspapers I read might surprise you. Fact: Libman made no such statement. Boulanger was ignored because his opinions and writings aren't taken seriously by anyone, anywhere, anytime, except by his fellow bigots. Also, I plan to edit your anti-France comments. Angelique 00:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this your opinion that Robert Libman didn't have an interview with a journalist of Le Voir in which he didn't say what wasn't printed?
Now you accuse me of making anti-France comments. That's funny. Can you give me an example of what I wrote that was anti-French? -- Mathieugp 04:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits[edit]

There are a number of problems with the recent edits to this articles. Before, the article was so empty that it contained nothing more than what Michaud said and some sort of an overview of the events (I wrote parts of it myself). However the recent entries introduced a point of view on the subjet and the article is now outbalanced and non-neutral. Some of the information behind the point of view that was introduced is actually valid and we should try to extract this information while removing what is not valid and/or out of context.

Here is a summary of what is problematic with the new entries:

  1. Civic / ethnic nationalism: The assertion that there is a division within the PQ between proponents of civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism is not based on facts. It is a very common opinion held (and used) by the adversairies of the Quebec sovereignty movement, but an opinion doesn't turn itself into facts because it has been repeated over and over again. The debate between the purely civic nation and the cultural nation and the sociopolitical nation etc. is however quite interesting in itself. For sure there will be an article on this subject in Wikipedia eventually. Maybe, someone will name it Quebec's political debate on national models or something similar.
  2. References to opinions of others: There are numerous generalizations on the opinions of certain social/religious/linguistic groups. Normally, the opinions are considered that of their authors alone. It would be good to give more precisions on the various opinions that were expressed in the media during the "affair" and attribute these opinions to the right persons. Before saying that an opinion or a view is generally held by a certain social/religious/linguistic group, we will need to find polls or stats leading to such conclusions.

Also, it would be good to put dates next to the events. A chronology is always good to put things back in their rightful places. I propose we start building a chronology of the events.

-- Mathieugp 04:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Banalization[edit]

Banalization is not an English word. As equivalents of banalisation I would suggest "minimization" or (probably a bit too colloquial) "playing down". --Saforrest 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to "trivialization". Nasorenga (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality October 2013[edit]

  • References have to be corrected. Please replace the marianopolis notes with the reference to the original sources.
  • The interpretation section is to be rewritten with sourced facts and clear notes.
  • The aftermath section need citations -Filmmtl (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michaud Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michaud_Affair&oldid=1204566105"