User talk:DW/Quebec issue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

<Wikipedia:Conflicts between users

I removed this here from Village Pump Muriel Victoria 16:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm new here and not certain if this is the proper page to be writing on so if not, someone please move it to the appropriate spot. I came across the article History of Quebec and was rather surprised to see it was far from encyclopedic in nature being little more than manipulated writing to provide a political slant. I tried fixing it but User:Mathieugp, deltes anything factual that is not to his political liking and removes links to other articles and words things far from a NPOV. I see that I’m not the only one with a problem with User:Mathieugp’s conduct, another user complained about his similar behaviour. Too, I see where User:Angela had to post a notice on his page saying: I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC). I am not interested in constantly having to change the deliberate propaganda and deletions of fact by this user. People like that ruin any pleasure one gets from contributing here. In fact, I really want nothing whatsoever to do with someone who abuses Wikipedia to promote their personal views and who launches vicious personal attacks. I suggest a Wikipedia Administrator do whatever necessary to put an end to this type of action that denegrates the sincere work being done by the many excellent contributors to the Wikipedia project. Thank you. Angelique 15:58, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(I moved the following here from vandalism in progress --snoyes 14:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC))

User:Angelique has been reverting to an earlier version of her own on 3 (or more) occasions. We are at least 2 users to have told Angelique to stop removing other peoples' dated events as part of History of Quebec. (See Talk:History_of_Quebec). On various occasions she accused me and User:Tremblay of pushing a "cause" which she never named and suggested that I had racist views, all the while adding a good number of paragraphs that are objectively anti everything that is Catholic and/or French. We have invited her to explain what was wrong with the things we inserted. She did not reply once, continuing to claim that it was all propaganda and lies in order to justify her removing it. I don't know what to do with that. I am not in the mood for a war of revert. Mathieugp 14:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mathieugp and I have repeatedly invited Angelique to have a dialogue with us to hopefully clarify the passages she deems inappropriate. Unfortunately, she has ignored these requests and continues to revert to her own version of edits with "It's massive propaganda" as the only explanation.

Recently she's resorted to name-calling, and there is no doubt as to her bias on the issues being discussed. Tremblay 18:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will not discuss false assertions and racist remarks that state I and all others are anti-Semites. I will remove them. Example: "Later, when such opinions weren't uncommon for North American and European Christians, he (Lionel Groulx) denounced Jews and supported the Nazis in Germany." -- I am a North American who is not anti-Semitic nor is anyone I know. There is no room for this kind of slander in Wikipedia. It is an embarassment to all of us who are sincerely trying to make their best and honest contributions. Angelique 20:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From what you've just quoted he's not accusing you of being anti-semitic. He's saying that anti-semitism was more prevalent than now in North America - not saying that all North Americans are anti-semitic, or Nazis or whatever. It's not a personal attackSecretlondon 20:32, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
There is a long list of awful things said and done on the back of Jews by members of the powerful Anglo-Protestant elite of Canada as well as the former Catholic elite of French Canada (Quebec), which was indirectly ruled by the later. There is the "none is too many" of McKenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, and the "they own too much" of Peladeau. I don't think it would serve any good to compare the two cases, but if it were to be done, there would be more than enough evidence to proove that the oppressed French Canadian minority of Canada had better things to do than oppress another minority group such as the Jews. There is a place to discuss and inform people on anti-semitism and racism. What you are doing is something else: The amalgamation of a bunch of quotes and statistics taken out of their context in the hope of portraying today's Quebec nationalists as monsters comparable to the Nazis. All it succeeds in doing is to nourish sentiments of hatred towards an entire people. Mathieugp 21:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, USER: is me (don't know why it didn't show my name) --- Ok, I guess I wasn't then. :-) User:Mathieugp 19:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The following reprimands for unacceptable conductis from Mathieugp's talk page which he deleted:

I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was referring to statements you made such as "you are hopeless" and "all morons who are brainwashed". Try to talk about the content of the article, not who wrote it. Read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and try not to get angry with other contributors, no matter how poorly they might be behaving. Angela 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought I should add to this that I have offered to mediate on this article, as I am somewhat knowledgeable about the topic (I am not one of those new official mediators or anything though). Mathieugp and Tremblay have no problem with this and are willing to see if I can make some sense out of timeline they have there now, but Angelique has either ignored my offer or told me I have no facts, or whatever (see my talk page). The others agreed to take a week off, and I know there is nothing stopping Angelique from editing it, but she is not being very helpful. Adam Bishop 16:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With the continual removing of information, moving of pages, accusations that I am somehow violating policy, I can no longer be bothered to attempt to fix the History of Quebec page at all (or the Timeline of Quebec History, where it has been moved to). I am also not really neutral anymore, since I've started taking sides in the issue. I am going to go back to editing stuff on things very few people care about so I can avoid all this nonsense. Sorry! Adam Bishop 19:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I unfortunately have found myself unable to avoid this issue, especially as it spills into things I am more familiar with (New France, specifically). I don't want to blame Angelique entirely, because, as I have said elsewhere, Mathieu, Tremblay, and I are not innocent in this issue either. However, we almost certainly have differing views on politics and life in general, and we have been able to work together. Angelique has not; it seems as if she is trying to push some kind of POV, but to be honest, I am completely baffled as to what that POV is. The best I can piece together is that she thinks Anglophones in Quebec are the victims of racism by the French government, and does not have any qualms about claiming people are racist.

Related to this, if that is a correct assessment, is the issue I have been involved in the most, which is the quote attributed to John A. Macdonald that "Riel shall hang, though every dog in Quebec barks in his favour," or something similar. I would not have a problem with her explaining that it's probably an apocryphal quote, but the conflict here is that no one has any idea what she thinks is wrong with it. Apparently she just doesn't want to denigrate Macdonald's character, which seems to be another POV issue to me, since she is trying to praise Anglophone politicians while bashing Francophone ones. Her solution to this was to post a government document supporting her position, but we still don't know what her position is, and the document treated the quote as if it was a fact anyway.

Whenever we question her about what she says, she either says she has answered already (and we can't read, or need to read her answer as if we haven't already tried), ignores the questions entirely, claims we are violating policy, claims we need to "read history," or "please use facts," or similar essentially meaningless phrases. I'm not sure what can be done about this, if anything. I am stumped and have no idea what should be done. Adam Bishop 00:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just to conclude this page, Angelique is the banned user DW and has been blocked from editing again. Angela. 03:28, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wonderful. No wonder he/she made absolutely no sense. Well, I guess they can feel proud that they have embarrassed me publicly, or something. Adam Bishop 03:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alleluia. -- Mathieugp 05:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)