Talk:Timeline of Quebec history

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

see also Talk:Timeline of Quebec history/Delete

From User talk:Mathieugp:

  • Hi Mathieugp, I just came across Political History of Quebec which you created a few days ago. The page is currently nothing but subheadings. I hope you don't mind the suggestion, but it would be best if you added the content before saving it as there is a risk it might be deleted otherwise. Angela. 01:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In response to the above, I moved History of Quebec to conform to other ?Timeline of History? pages in Wikipedia. Angelique 17:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good idea but bad title. Timeline of Quebecois history or Timeline of history of Quebec or something would be better. Tuf-Kat 17:14, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

User:TUF-KAT - Should we change Timeline of United States history too? Angelique


Sigh...what was wrong with leaving it under History of Quebec, and just turning the timeline into an article? Adam Bishop 17:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I also see that this was a botched move, apparently it was just copied into a new article rather than moved properly, so all the edit history is still at History of Quebec. This is getting insane...I think I would prefer letting Angelique go beserk over History of Quebec instead of getting involved at all. Adam Bishop 19:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I left History of Quebec open so a proper written history can be made with a link to the timeline. This is what was done by others for the USA etc. Angelique 19:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, you might want to have this page deleted, revert History of Quebec, and then move it properly over here with "move this page" function (it's a common mistake so I don't mean to sound like I am blaming you for it). Adam Bishop 19:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I deleted: "The Collège Laval, the first institution of higher learning in Canada," because it doesn't makje sense. University of New Brunswick was created back in 1795. Clarification might help? Angelique 19:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why do you just delete stuff? This is so unethical. The first institution of higher learning in Canada is the Séminaire de Québec, founded in 1663. Collège Laval is a mistake. It was founded by Mgr François de Montmorency "Laval" but will not have his name until it is given its Royal Charter in 1852. After that, it will be called Université Laval. Since you are for sure able to read both French and English very well, you can visit this Website and see for yourself http://www.ulaval.ca/scom/contact/printemps02/01.html. Please, reinsert the information, correcting Collège Laval with Séminaire de Québec, founded in 1663. -- Mathieugp 22:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your moving the chronology to Timeline of Quebec history, however, there shouldn't be a capital H for 'history' and, as Adam Bishop pointed out, you should have used the move function. Will you move it to Timeline of Quebec history properly or should someone else do it? -- Mathieugp 22:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moved from: Talk:History of Quebec:

I am removing the following input by Tremblay and Mathieugp for the fourth time. This is absolute and total falsehood deliberately placed in this article to denegrate the Prime Minister of Canada. Angelique 16:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The Prime Minister of Canada, John A. MacDonald declares that "Even if all the dogs of Quebec bark, Riel will be hanged!" He later claimed that he meant dogs in the literal sense."

Which part do you object do? That he meant dogs literally? If so, then it's probably a good idea to take that out, even though you should still be avoiding editing the article :) Anyway, are you objecting to the quote in general? Is it apocryphal? Or do you just think that nothing bad should be said about Macdonald? Adam Bishop 16:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


She appears to be unwilling to discuss anything related to these pages...perhaps we are unworthy of her? I am still wondering about that "every dog in Quebec" quote she keeps removing. Adam Bishop 23:48, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, we are unworthy for sure. She wants to remove it because it makes John A. McDonald, first Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, member of the Orange Order, look like he didn't respect Quebecers. Personally, I think it would not be fair to the man to just quote him without putting his words in context. However, removing it is like saying it didn't happen. -- Mathieugp 00:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The first thing in writing history is to research facts. Second, if quoting, make sure you are certain they actually said it and then that you have it accurate. In political history there are certain quotes that not just historians but virtually everyone knows. They may not know the exact quote, but all know the factual meaning. Examples: Chamberlain?s 1938 referring to ?peace with honour? - Churchill?s ?fight them in the streets? - JFK?s ?Ask not? - Nixon?s ?I am not a crook? etc. Had Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald ever referred to the people of Quebec as dogs, it would be in every history class in Canadian centers of learning, the rallying cry for Quebec separatists, and a truly infamous moment in Canadian history. Hence, the validity of this remark should have raised a flag to any historian and any Canadian seeing it in a Wikipedia article. The quote that was posted here was reposted each time I deleted it even though I stated it was an ?absolute and total falsehood.? And, I expected anyone who disagreed with my clear assertion of such a major and infamous attribution to a Prime Minister, to provide facts and references to their view, not childish jibes or unfounded criticsm. I do not like racism and bigotry and I do not like malicious slander. Canadians are proud of their first Prime Minister and lies that hate-mongers put in Wikipedia to denigrate him, only end up denigrating Wikipedia as a whole. So, to set the record straight I refer to a very proud Canadian, the Hon. Senator Gerry St. Germain, a French-Canadian, born in Louis Riel country in St. Boniface, Manitoba, a former member of the Canadian House of Commons, a former Cabinet Minister of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the same party as John A. Macdonald and a current member of the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. The statement about Louis Riel attributed to the Prime Minister of Canada is in fact nothing even remotely close to the falsehood at Wikipedia and his mundane words were never considered as anything other than what it exactly says:

  • "He shall hang, even though all dogs in Quebec bark in his favour."

For reference, please go to the Senate of Canada site: http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/gstgermain/PDF/DebPres/DebatesLouis%20Riel.doc 

 Angelique 23:25, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Okay...

Had Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald ever referred to the people of Quebec as dogs, it would be in every history class in Canadian centers of learning,

Well...isn't it? It's been in every Canadian history class I've ever taken. That is not to say it is necessarily true, and that of course does not mean I have taken every Canadian history class there has ever been :)

the rallying cry for Quebec separatists, and a truly infamous moment in Canadian history.

Isn't it both those things as well? In fact I would say every Canadian I know, who knows about Macdonald and Riel, knows that quote (but there are many who know of neither person, of course).

I'm not sure what your link is meant to accomplish. You can read for yourself that Senator St. Germain says:


It was Sir John A. Macdonald who said, "He shall hang, even though all dogs in Quebec bark in his favour."

It's about halfway down page six. So I'm not sure how you have concluded that it is an "absolute and total falsehood." I don't think the quote is bigotry, or racism, or malicious slander, on anyone's part. It's just what Macdonald said at the time - or, perhaps, what was attributed to him. I don't see anyone claiming that it was never said at all, even your link doesn't claim that.

We can't go around changing things to make Wikipedia full of Canadian pride; that's not the "neutral point of view," which is the foundation of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think it dishonours Macdonald to have that quote there, and I don't think you have shown that it is a false quote. I am also worried about what you will do to the John A. Macdonald page itself, which talks about his alcoholism, and the story of his vomiting during a debate (which is more definitely apocryphal than this Riel quote).

I also you need to calm down and not get personally offended by what you read here. It's hard to understand what you are objecting to, even now after you've posted such a long explanation (which seems to contradict what you're claiming anyway). As I try to read what you've written, I am honestly baffled as to what you are arguing - is it that the quote is just a quote, and that Macdonald did say it? Or are you saying he never said it at all? Or are you saying the quote should not be used to denigrate him? I don't understand. Adam Bishop 00:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are the only person I know who go as far as denying that the man has actually said "He shall hang, though every dog in Quebec bark in his favor". Typing the sentence in www.google.ca will produce over 100 results. Typing the translation into modern English will produce even more results (300). One source is on an actual Orange Order fan site and even there nobody denies that it occurred during an interview in Ottawa in 1885. Unfortunately, I cannot find more precise details online. (http://members.tripod.com/~Roughian/index-27.html)
If you could prove this quote to be false, you would be making quite an extraordinary discovery because many people seem not to question this fact at all since as far back as 1885 when it became public information. You should really publish your proof and become famous.
As for it being a separatist rallying cry, you are not entirely off this time. After the hanging of Riel, Honoré Mercier became famous in Quebec for saying "Riel, our brother, is dead..." Some say that this got him elected premier of Quebec. However, if Quebec nationalism was based on nothing but resentment and frustrations, the rallying cry would have to be : "Mange de la marde!" (Eat shit!), or "Comment veux-tu donner du genie a un peuple qui n'en a pas?" (How do you give intelligence to a people that has no brain?) all professed by Pierre (Eliott) Trudeau. -- Mathieugp 03:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The KKK denounced French speakers? Please provide facts or it will be deleted. It may be convenient to Mathieugp goals, but for a bunch of lunatics who worship the German-speaking Hitler, this thing doesn't fit. Angelique 19:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It probably had something to do with them being Catholic, I imagine. Anyway, can you please provide facts about the Macdonald stuff before you go off on other adventures? It's not very Wiki-like to ignore questions, and it makes us question the validity of everything else you do :) Adam Bishop 19:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To Adam Bishop - You said "please provide facts about the Macdonald stuff" --- ???? I stated all the facts, and on this page. Remember, I suggested several times that you try reading before opening your mouth. Please, start acting a little responsible here. Angelique 19:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angelique, you have said entirely nothing about the "all dogs in Quebec" thing, or what you have said is completely non-sensical. No one has any idea what you are opposed to - the quote itself, whether he even said it, what it means for Macdonald's character. We just don't know. Both Mathieu and I brought up some questions about what you posted on this talk page, and you've completely ignored them. Adam Bishop 20:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The KKK is anti everything that is not white anglo-saxon and protestant. Anti gay, anti catholic, anti black, anti jew etc. Angelique cleverly replaced Protestant with Christian and is now questioning the fact that French Canadians fell into the scapegoat categories of the KKK. In any case, since I care about facts, I found this, in English, for her : http://www.usask.ca/education/ideas/tplan/sslp/kkk.htm Good reading my dear! -- Mathieugp 20:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Timeline of Quebec history[edit]

I moved the page Timeline of Quebec History to Timeline of Quebec history using the move function. It worked just fine. Now, I am going to begin the breakdown of the timeline the way it is done on Timeline of United States history but keeping the current structure by political regime. If there are objections, it is not too late to stop me. Regards to all. -- Mathieugp 21:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I object to most everything Mathieugp does, because each edit is an attempt to slant his views and when one disagrees with him, he calls them "brainwashed morons." In accordance and compliance with Wikipedia policy, I reserve the right to edit or revert everything Mathieugp does. Angelique the brainwashed moron


That is not in accordance or compliance with any policy; we're supposed to be working together here. It will just lead to edit wars, and eventually the page being blocked, and perhaps people considering you a troll and banning you (as a last resort, of course). Mathieu isn't entirely innocent here either, of course (I suspect that neither am I), but automatically reverting him will not solve anything. Adam Bishop 21:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Quote every edit page in Wikipedia: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Angelique the brainwashed moron

I believe you have misunderstood that; it doesn't mean "edited and reverted over a personal grudge, to the detriment of the encyclopedia as a whole." It means don't think of edits as being owned by you. Adam Bishop 22:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bishop: Please show me just one of my edits that are "edited and reverted over a personal grudge, to the detriment of the encyclopedia as a whole" and I will leave immediately. If not please shut up. You have already apologized for one grave mistake, don't add to it by slandering me. Angelique 00:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow, you've completely misunderstood why I apologized to you. I just wanted to start over, I was hoping you would realize you were wrong as well and would also want to start over. I see that I was wrong. Adam Bishop 16:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This event, before you were born, may be called that by a few radical separatists, but the fact is mob violence and a violent attack on Pierre Trudeau was not/is not called an such BS as the "Monday of the Bludgeon" by any credible news organization. In fact, police conduct was never an issue--ever. The famous news clip of others running for cover while Trudeau is seen defying the violent mob as bricks and bottles flew by his head, is what got him elected. Read history, please. Angelique 00:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey Angelique, can you provide substantial proof that Le lundi de la matraque is a term used by only a few? Tremblay 00:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why? Did you and your friends post it to your website for great journalists? Angelique 00:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


RE: 1963 - Front de Libération du Québec members, Gabriel Hudon and Raymond Villeneuve are sentenced to 12 years in prison for manslaughter after their bomb killed Sgt. O'Neill, a watchman at Montreal's Canadian Army Recruitment Center. They will serve less than four years. --- It is worth noting, that Sgt. O'Neill is dead forever. Angelique 00:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some people would object to you making fun of the dead. -- Mathieugp 01:02, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RE: Second Cup bombings. McDonald's didn't change their name even after being bombed because they really are owned by the famous Big Mac who was Marshal of France Angelique 00:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was not renamed because McDonald's is an internationally know and successful trademark like Coke or Nike. That's what business logic dictates. -- Mathieugp 01:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So why bomb the hell out of them? Angelique 01:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Because they are idiotic kids trying to get attention? Because they are frustrated? -- Mathieugp 01:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proposed Breakdown[edit]

I have posted a proposed breakdown which follows the evolution of Quebec from the Beginnings of time to present. The current breakdown follows the geopolitical evolution of Quebec from New France until now for most of it. A new timeline division is made for every new constitutional change, including 1982 which will make Angelique happy. I have also intentionally broke down the long 1867 - 1960 period in two: (1867 - 1899) and (1900-1960) to mark the beginning of the 20th century. 1960 is the beginning of modern Quebec era which we are still under and marked the end of the "grande noirceur" which peaked under Duplessis. Voila. All comments are welcomed. -- Mathieugp 01:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is nbo need to break this up into many pages. An encyclopedia needs to be concise and easy to follow for any reader. Currently, the page is still much shorter than many others at Wikipedia and as is, Mathieu/Tremblay have done an outstanding job making it a nice, neat presentation. Angelique 01:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't need to be that many subdivisions...I'm not sure there's much need for any subdivisions at all. A lot of what is in this article already isn't encyclopedic anyway, it could really use some cleaning up. Adam Bishop 01:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why do you say there is no need for that many subdivisions? My opinion is that the timeline will include many historical events for each year eventually, so I expect it will grow quite a lot over time. Each page of the subdivisions could be at least as long as the one we have right now, which is a mess. I thought that we wanted to do the short concise article in History of Quebec? -- Mathieugp 01:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I guess the shorter one could be at History of Quebec...it just seems that there are a lot of things in the Timeline that aren't really necessary (just from looking at the end, is it necessary to mention everytime there is a poll?). As for the subdivisions, I know they go by important events, but 1774-1791, for example, is only 17 years. I think it may make more sense to put, say, 1760-1867 all in one article. Adam Bishop 02:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ok. If you gather the support of the majority with your proposal, I will obey democracy and we can break it down into longer segments. I still think it would be better to prepare for later when there are more events added to the timeline. If you look at Timeline of Canadian history, they have a link for every year on there. Some events don't belong in a historical timeline like the year my mother was born or the day you first laced your shoes. I think we can have other Timeline of Quebec something for special things. For example, there is a Timeline of United States diplomatic history. There could be a Timeline of Quebec anti-semitic history and Timeline of Quebec terrorist history for Angelique. ;-) More seriously, we can add lists of all kinds and election results or polls in other articles because there are important I think. -- Mathieugp 03:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you want to do it like the "years in Canada" articles...well, in that case, why not just add the Quebec events to those? Adam Bishop 03:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The key events that are also relevent to Canada (the federation) can be included there for sure. However, the Timeline of Canadian history begins in the 1860s and it focuses on what is important to the majority of Canadians. If there were a Timeline of North American history, all the events occuring in Canada would get lost in the mass of American events and it would be difficult to perceive the reality of Canadians as a people. In the same way, craming events that occured in Quebec inside a timeline for all of Canada will not be very useful to understanding Quebec history. It is just a question of focus. For example, a Timeline of Ontario history would reveal facts that are lost in the big picture of the history of all provinces put together. Does that make sense? -- Mathieugp 04:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I would put Ontario events there too; there's no reason you can't add more dates to the Timeline of Canadian history, it's only arbitrarily at 1860 at the moment anyway :) On an article for, say, 1890, it could be subdivided further into events for all the provinces. I think that would be more useful than having 13 different timelines plus the Canadian one. We should probably also ask the creators of the Timeline of Canadian history what they think of this. Adam Bishop 04:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ok. I still want to working on the Timeline of Quebec history. The Timeline of United States history does not have a breakdown of all 50 States. Each State entered the union at a different moment (except for the first 13 ones I guess.) and they all have their own story to tell. It is the same for the Canadian federation and knowing the pride of Newfies, Albertans and British Columbians for their home province, I am sure they will want to tell their own history as they learned it from their different history programs. I think there can be 13 different timelines linking to each other and sharing common events. -- Mathieugp 04:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I found an excellent online source on Quebec history I'd like to share: http://fc.lbpsb.qc.ca/~history/mod1u.htm. It is all the modules of the history of Quebec and Canada as taught in Quebec high schools (francophone and anglophone). This is as neutral as it gets. -- Mathieugp 01:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Neutral? Did not the English language School Boards condemn the new "Parti Quebecois" prepared history books imposed on them, calling it a biased rewrite of history? Or, is that more: (cur) (last) . . 17:04, 8 Dec 2003 . . Mathieugp (This page presents the culture of Quebec, not a caricature of "French-Canadian" culture as perceived from Toronto.) Angelique 13:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The education program is written by the same devoted professionals at the Ministry of education as anywhere else in the world. The Ministry of education was created in 1968. The PQ was elected in 1977. Currently, the elected government of the National Assembly is not the PQ and they will not touch the education program to write what Angelique wants to see in it. This history program is the most unbiased in all of Canada precisely because it is made for both anglophones and francophones who would not accept that the other side pushes its own point of view.

I removed from the year 1572: "This event is pointed to today to explain why the French voted full religious freedoms for all in 1789 with the [Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]." -- This is irrelevant and meaningless to the date in question and in 1789, irrelevant and meaningless to the British controlled Quebec history. Too, this so-called Declaration (oops there was a 10:00 a.m. trial followed by a 10:30 guillotine) was meaningless and the article needs proper explanation. Angelique 14:02, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. Read French revolution and learn the importance of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen for all of Humanity. You hatred of all that is not English is beyond me. -- Mathieugp 14:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Find 1572 as an important date in the history of any Canadian province just for fun. That year is not relevant unless you are trying to push a POV where all Catholics and French are criminals and the British Empire is responsible for all major advances of Humanity. -- Mathieugp 14:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mathieugp - Seeing as 1) I am a French citizen, and 2) baptized a Roman Catholic, I'm not sure about your bigoted remarks here, unless of course it is no more than an expansion of your calling others a brainwashed moron. Please elaborate? Angelique 14:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

J'ai de la difficulté à croire que tu puisses être de nationalité française. Citoyenneté française? C'est possible. On peut devenir citoyen d'un nouveau pays et choisir de ne pas s'intégrer à la culture de celui-ci pour un ensemble de raisons valables, par exemple si l'on est réfugié. Ceci dit, il est normal de faire le contraire, de vouloir être (ou devenir) français en habitant la France. Je doute que cela soit ton cas. Tu sembles être loin d'avoir le jugement et l'esprit critique d'une européenne. La Révolution française est un point tournant dans l'histoire de toute l'humanité, tout comme la déclaration d'indépendance américaine. Tous les humains, et particulièrement ceux de nationalité française, peuvent êtres fiers des progrès que nous avons accomplis depuis cette époque. Je pense aussi que tu emploies les mots "bigoted" et "racist" sans vraiment connaître le véritable sens de ces mots et surtout l'origine des sentiments qu'ils expriment : l'intolérance face aux autres et l'irrespect de la différence. Jusqu'à présent, la seule personne qui ait fait l'ample démonstration de ces deux grands défauts de la personne humaine, de l'avis de 3 personnes sur 4 au moins, ce n'est pas moi, c'est toi. La maîtrise du langage ne semble pas être ta plus grande force ma pauvre amie. -- Mathieugp 17:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think you are trying to get me angry and insult you to boot me out of wikipedia. Good try Angelique. -- Mathieugp 17:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Je suis en accord avec toi, Mathieu...perhaps she is pulling our legs (but I don't know how to say that in French :)) Adam Bishop 19:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Angelique has copied and pasted the History of Quebec article into Timeline of Quebec History which she created. In doing this, she did not use the move function. Mathieugp

I've now merged the history of these two pages, so it looks as though the History of Quebec page was moved in the first place, rather than cut and pasted and Timeline of Quebec History now has the complete editing history in it. Angela. 00:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

History of Quebec[edit]

Now, how do we go about writing a good article for History of Quebec? Right now, Tremblay tells me he is working on Revolution tranquille. Do you want to work on it Tremblay, Adam Bishop or Angelique? I will me working on the timeline personnally. Cleaning up and removing lenghtly opinion paragraphs. -- Mathieugp 05:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...this is what I was talking about before. Something like Timeline of Quebec history (1001 to 1533) is not very useful at all, and could either be merged with some of the other divisions, or merged into the timeline of Canada. Adam Bishop 05:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah I think you are right now. We can merge it with the one before. There won't be many new things added to 1001 to 1533. Unless a person very knowledgeable of the Amerindian and Inuit history and antropology pops in. All things relevant here can be added to the timeline of Canada, because Quebec is Canada, Canada is Quebec, for a long period of time. :-) -- Mathieugp 14:45, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I reverted the work of Mathieugp who is trying to split up this page against all logic and the will of others. This kind of conduct will not be tolerated. I have posted the 14 new articles created from this one to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Angelique 12:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the third time I removed this: "For some, this event is referred to as the Lundi de la Matraque (Monday of the Bludgeon)." -- This definition has never appeared in any reputable newspaper, magazine. The creation of a slogan by those with an agenda and published in their websites or other fringe publications do not belong in Wikipedia. This article has been filled with many such distortions by User:Mathieugp / [[User:TYremblay. Angelique 14:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You have stated that you would object to everything I do. User:Adam Bishop has been giving constructive criticism, User:Tremblay said he didn't have time to look into this for now. I have agreed that some subdivisions are not necessary. However, the history of the Province of Quebec as a province of the British Empire starts in 1763 and before that, some people existed here, so I think it is fair to let them tell their history. I personally don't like a historiography that excludes the natives almost completely. This is a very long history. The subdivisions are modeled after Timeline of United States history. The other one I looked at, Timeline of Canadian history had subdivision for every year. I thought this was exagerated, so I copied the other one. But, whatever I'll say, you'll disagree for sure. I demanded that Angela tries to reason with you, seeing that on three occasions, you reverted to your own previous version. The timeline subdivisions can be modified, but I don't think people will vote for their removal just because you don't like me. -- Mathieugp 15:13, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure what she means either, "Nightstick Monday" is used to refer to that event in English, so it's not as if you have invented the term for Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 18:05, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's time you give proof instead of shooting off your mouth, again. Provide proof from just one reputable source (CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, Globe and Mail) where they even once called it "Monday of the Bludgeon" or the sudden new version, "Nightstick Monday." What most Canadians called that night, was another example of extremists who use violence to achieve their goals. Evey credible media outlet did and continues to refer to that as the 1968 St Jean Baptiste Riot. So, prove what you say for a change because so far you have never proven a single thing. Angelique 18:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excellent, you'll prove your claims. Just what we'd been asking for! Here are a few recent edits that I'd be interested in seeing proved:
* That MacDonald never said "He shall hang, even though all dogs in Quebec bark in his favour." Timeline of Quebec history
* That FDR's words on the dispersion and assimilation of French Canadians, Jews, Italians and Germans were "distorted". Timeline of Quebec history
* That Voir publishes "heresay" and is "not a credible news source". Yves Michaud
* That the aboriginal peoples call [the period of lasting peace in New France] the continued decimation of their nation. New France
I've got more, but that should be enough for now. Tremblay 20:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, produce just one example from any of the country's credible media services named above, and I will leave Wikipedia, permanently. Angelique

One example from a credible media service: http://www1.sympatico.ca/news/Specials/2000/trudeau/timeline.html
Trudeau showered with rocks and bottles on reviewing stand during St-Jean Baptiste Day riot; so-called 'Lundi de la matraque' - Nightstick Monday - as 290 arrested, 130 injured. Montreal, Quebec.
©1989-2000 Ottawa Researchers/Dr. Alastair Sweeny All Rights Reserved. Tremblay 20:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Will you just consider the English language media? Because Lundi de la matraque is unlikely to be printed in those. However, in French language media, the expression is still in use some 35 years after :
Lundi de la matraque in Ledevoir.com Oh yeah, that's right. Lionel Groulx wrote in it, therefore it cannot be valid. You were clever in listing only the media owned by the federal government and private owners who contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada. -- Mathieugp 20:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Calling it the "1968 St. Jean Baptiste Day riot" is preferrable to Lundi de la matraque or whatever English translation of that there is. Adam Bishop 20:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed this BS. The most famous saying in women's rights history in Canada (and court case) is "I (a woman) am not a person". Angelique 18:48, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Quebec women had lost the right to vote under the Union regime when the civil code of Quebec was harmonized with the British common law which then gave the juridical status of a minor to women. Prior to that, women were not legally prevented from voting in Lower Canada.
The two are unrelated. Whatever the most famous saying is in English Canada, it doesn't change the fact that Quebec women were legally prevented from voting (like the other women) until they won their battle against this injustice. It took many many years, it was even longer by 38 years in Quebec. Before the Union Act though, the Civil code of Quebec didn't make it illegal for women to vote. That doesn't mean it was socially accepted for women to do it, but it is a historical fact that the wife of Papineau, Julie, for example was voting during elections, so was Papineau's mother. After the shooting of 1832, the Parti Patriote passed a law limiting the right to vote to men above 21. The opinion of men at the time was that it was a question of security for children an women. Julie Papineau was very bitter at her husband after that. Fortunately for Quebec women, the bill didn't get royal assent. -- Mathieugp 20:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record: The BNA act used the word "persons" when it referred to more than one person and the word "he" when it referred to one person. As a consequence it was argued that the act meant that only a man could be a person.

In 1927 Emily Murphy, Irene Marryat Parlby, Nellie Mooney McClung, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards asked the Supreme Court of Canada to answer the question "Are women persons?" The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the word "person" did not include women.

The five women, nicknamed "The Valiant Five" were shocked and disgusted by the decision but did not quit and took the case to the Privy Council in England which in those days, was in fact Canada's highest court. The women of Canada, including Quebec, were estatic when, on October 18, 1929, the Privy Council of England declared that Canadian women were indeed persons. We won! Angelique 18:57, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've decided to put an end to Mathieugp/Tremblay's word game intended to deceive. I will challenge each thing with factual details. Intimating that Quebec, under France's rule, allowed women to vote is pure bull. Women in France (and its colonies) did not get the right to vote until 1944. Please see the United Nations website: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_234_1_1.html 

Angelique 19:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here is an excellent link detailing what I have written on the right to vote in Quebec. 60th Anniversary of women's right to vote. This is on the site of the Chief Electoral Officer of Québec. You will not find more neutral than this. Read and wash away this anti-Quebec prejudice forever. -- Mathieugp 22:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It was not under France's royal regime, it was under the 1791 Constitutional Act. -- Mathieugp 20:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think they could vote because there was technically nothing saying they couldn't, but that might have been later under British rule. I'll look it up this time so you don't accuse me of not having facts, or whatever. By the way, do you mean "we won" as a woman in general, or a Canadian woman? Aren't you from France? Adam Bishop 19:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hehehe. Good one. -- Mathieugp 20:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It wasn't meant like that...I was just curious. Adam Bishop 20:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am actually curious too. Who is Angelique? -- Mathieugp

We means "women" of all nations and the universe. I was born in France (in the place they call the "Cradle of the French language", and retain my citizenship of which I am deeply proud. Angelique 19:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I see...but do you live in Canada? Or are you just interested in Canadian politics? Adam Bishop 19:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am interested in truth, justice, and equality for everyone, including women. Angelique 22:05, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hardbanned DW was Angelique[edit]

Well, I guess we won't see DW/Angelique until he/she reappears under a new user name... -- Mathieugp 05:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Implemented Subdivisions[edit]

I merged Beginnings to 1000 with 1001 to 1533. I also added navigation menus at the top of each page. I only did my best to clean up. I was thinking we should put 1950s type subheadings as on Timeline of United States history. What do you guys think of it? -- Mathieugp 05:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Quebec_history&oldid=1200411121"