Talk:Mordecai Richler

Jacob Two-Two

Richler's Jacob Two-Two books are certainly NOT for "young adults." They are for children from the ages of 5- 10 (i.e. elementary school age.)

Nancy Holmes (mother and kid lit instructor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.110.223.52 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unilingual?

I was under the impression that Richler's knowledge of the French language was extremely limited. A friend who attended a roast for Richler says a great deal was made of this that at the event. Would anyone have a reference? Victoriagirl 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He mentions it several times in Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country. It was also a criticism used against him by Jose Legault and other Quebecois commentators. Arthur Ellis 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls. see p. 258, para 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Ellis (talk • contribs)

Page has been fixed to say he was not bilingual but could read French.Arthur Ellis 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richler's Montreal wasn't French. Any mention of French is an anacronistic reference since Montreal was never a "French city." Indeed, that's why there now, (the last twenty years), exist language laws in Quebec banning English-language signs. This whole issue is a French supremicist attack against Richler; and should be so indicated.--Lance ^talk 07:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plateau v. Mile End v. St Urbain Street

Can we please have some consistency on nomeclature for the neighbourhood where Richler grew up? At various times and in various places, the article has referred to St. Urbain Street, Mile End, and Plateau. I assure you the area was not known -- by anyone -- as the Plateau when Richler lived there. So let's not engage in revisionism. Why not just a neutral "St Urbain Street" or "St. Urbain Street neighbourhood" thorughout? Or does that open another can of worms: the rue St. Urbain/ St. Urban Street issue. Oy!

Street names should be in English only; French didn't exist in this part of Montreal at this time. The appropriate street names are St. Urbain Street, the Main, and Park Avenue (north and east of Mount Royal Park) --Lance ^talk 07:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're talking about a direct quote from Richler's work, we're not bound by any requirement to use the same names for things that Richler himself did. Wikipedia's base requirement is not that a street or place name has to be translated into English regardless of whether the translated name is actually in use or not; the only requirement is that we use a name that English speakers would be aware of. In some cases, that does mean translated names — but in other cases (especially for proper geographic names) it's far more appropriate to use the original proper name whether that's in English or not. Which is not to say that the terms necessarily have to stay in the original French in this case...but it's also not a foregone conclusion that they have to be translated, either. This is a matter that should be discussed and/or RFCed, if necessary, but it is not within your purview to personally dictate the appropriate terminologies without some discussion.

On the other hand, Wikipedia does have a requirement that we provide sufficient context for a person unfamiliar with the topic to understand the article — so I think it's distinctly possible that the most appropriate solution would be the compromise position of using the Richler-era English names while providing parenthetical "(now known as [[French name]])" links for maximum clarity. But I wouldn't impose that without agreement from others, either. (Oh, and by the way, to whoever posted the first comment: while it's true that the street's name is generally pronouced "Urban" in English, it's still spelled "Urbain".) Bearcat 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an active campaign to erase Montreal's history that has manifested itself in the changing of street names. Before my time, de Maisoneuve was known as Burnside, (a prominent, if somewhat creepy, high-rise on the McGill campus is called Burnside Hall; and I seem to remember from my university "orientation" session that James McGill's farm was called Burnside). Dorchester Blvd. was, against much protest, renamed René Lévesque (the City of Westmount, however, retained the name Dorchester for that part within its municipal boundary). And now, the mayor of Montreal--who, it seems, can only be French Canadian by current voting contraints--wants to change the name of Park Avenue to Henri Bourassa; the guy that used the "notwithstanding clause" to trample on basic Constitutional rights. So there is much more to this than you may realize.--Lance ^talk 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, believe me, I "realize" the issue just fine. It's kind of a moot point, though: the role of Wikipedia is not to make pronouncements about the way things should be, but to reflect as accurately as possible the way things are. If the name of Park Avenue does get changed to rue Henri-Bourassa, it would be perfectly valid to note the renaming controversy in the correctly titled article — but it would not be valid to pretend Park Avenue was still the street's legal name or its most appropriate article title, because taking sides in a controversial issue is not Wikipedia's role. Bearcat 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Quebec bashing

While I agree that Richler's perceived "Quebec bashing" be included in the article, I regret that it dominates - 882 words compared to 613 in the opening section. I am hoping that this imbalance will be addressed by others. In the meantime, I dare to contribute to the problem through queries and clarification.

First, I question the statement: "Because of his prestige as an author of fiction, he got to access forums around the world in such prestigious publications as The New Yorker." The implication here is that he sought out soapboxes upon which to air his views. I think we must assume that the articles on Quebec written for American magazines were commissioned - certainly "Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!" was. I've changed this sentence.

Second, there is nothing in the source cited to indicate that Richler linked René Lévesque to Nazism. That he made the claim that the "PQ supporters sang a French version of 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me'... at theeir victory rally" - without a doubt. This is not quite the same as linking Lévesque personally to Nazism. On the same topic: in Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Richler admits to the gaff, criticising himself for "cribbing" the supposed fact from an article in Commentary (p. 128-29).

I have removed the brief mention of Ray Conlogue, not exactly a major voice in the Canadian media. As he is discredited in Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! (p 259-60) - any mention should most certainly discuss this issue, thereby making this section of the article longer (as would his criticisms of Richler's novels).

Finally, I do hope that some balance might be brought to this section. As much as I might admire Lisée, I think he is relied on a bit too much. Certainly some quotations might be substituted for other voices. I must add that on this issue Richler does have his defenders - none of whom are included here.

I write all this in good faith and in the interest of NPOV. I'm no great fan of Richler's writing on Quecbec. As I've written elsewhere on Wki "as an historian, Richler was a very good novelist".Victoriagirl 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the case of Esther Delisle, I argued for moving the contents pertaining to the controversy around her book to.. the article on her book. (See the "Cleanup" section in the discussion page of her article.) I think the same should apply to Mordecai Richler's controversial book. The Mordecai Richler article being by definition a biography article, the huge quote taken from the article on Quebec bashing is totally out of place. I'd be in favor of removing the "Alleged Quebec bashing" section completely. -- Mathieugp 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the argument that the whole "Alleged Quebec bashing" section did not exactely belong at the Mordecai Richler page. I usually follow a rule of not letting a controversy swallow up a biography page, to be fair. After discussion with the user that made the move, I put back the whole section in Quebec bashing and put the sum-up in Mordecai Richler (although I'd prefer the sum-up to be rephrased in different words so we don't have identical text on both pages). On Conlogue, you see, the text at Quebec bashing was criticized (on the deletion debate) for not citing enough opponants from English Canada, implying that it showed a polemic intent. In truth, the reason for a lack of opposing English Canadian voices to anti-Quebec media in the text is that is that there just seems to not be too many of them (probably caused fpr an important part by simple unawareness of the issue). I tried to show with Conlogue that there was diversity of opinion and dissent in English Canada over this. If he was mentioned by Richler himself, his criticism has some notability, but I agree that Richler's rebuttal, whatever its merit, could be added to the text.

Would you, or anyone else, be able to find: 1. Other dissenting voices in English Canada criticizing "Quebec bashing" and 2. Those voices that defend Richler? About the second point: that was next on my list and about the first, I've looked. On Lisée: You have a point. At the same time, he's a good authority on the subject because he researched on Richler's assertions notably for the debate he had with Richler and because he wrote "the" book on the perception of Quebec from the United States, In the Eye of the Eagle, spanning 30 years of political and media attention. If I didn't find 10 sources, well, there's just so much a man can do. Bring the other examples you find. Also, Lisée said he linked Lévesque to Nazism, but I agree it's touchy without more specific reference. --Liberlogos 09:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

Yikes! I know emotions run high of matters relating to Quebec. But this is ridiculous -- the very sort of special pleading by special interests that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I propose the entire "controversy" section be deleted and, instead, one or two sentences be added to the body of the article. It's a question of perspective, balance and fairness. There was much more to Richler than his battles with Quebec nationalists. In the grand scheme of things, for example, a detailed explication de texte of a 30 year old controversy (complete with footnotes!) is just plain silly.

Just above, I suggested moving the whole thing to the article on his controversial book. Is there an agreement here to do that? If there is no opposition at all, I'll be glab to do the cut and paste job. :-) -- Mathieugp 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that this section covers more than just the book. It focuses on the book, but the New Yorker article, Saturday Night article, and other interviews are covered here. I do think its fair to move it to another article but the naming is problematic. Mordecai Richler controversy? Mordecai Richler and Quebec? Mordecai Richler's opinions on Quebec? Other suggestions? Peregrine981 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move the controversy section from this article to the Mordecai Richler section of the Quebec bashing article. I would then modify the end of the fourth paragraph of this article as follows:

....Quebec nationalists criticized Richler for never mastering French and accused him of Quebec bashing.

This text has already been moved back and forth between here and the Quebec bashing article twice. Peregrine981 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am currently working on a well-advanced article named Controverse Delisle-Richler, I suggest Delisle-Richler controversy as an article name. -- Mathieugp

The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz: Book and Film

Apologies for the confusion surrounding my recent change. [1] Though I had checked the link, I read nothing more that the title. In my defense, it appears that both articles are not titled correctly. In short, the novel The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz is the both original work and the source work for the film. As such the corresponding article should be titled "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz", not "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (book)". The article on the film should be retitled "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (film)". I will make this change. I must disagree that the inclusion of "(film)" for the movies "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" and "Joshua Then and Now". After all, their titles aren't "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (film)" and "Joshua Then and Now (film)", as is now indicated. I know of no other biographical article that records the titles in this manner. As the titles appear under the heading "Film scripts", I think it clear that it is the films to which are being referred.Victoriagirl 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the film is much better known, but the article title change is fine with me. I tend to agree that when a book comes first, it should take title precedence, but generally, it seems that Wikipedia convention is that when one item or person is more widely known than another, the widely known item / person gets the priority in article naming. Here is the policy: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (Wikipedia:Naming conventions) Hu 23:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I guess I'm just looking at things as a Canadian. I think most people my age who were schooled in English and were assigned the book at some point. If the film is better known elsewhere I have no problem with leaving things as they are. It would certainly save me a lot of work. Victoriagirl 00:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the "Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!" emphasis

It is shocking to see so much attention to this topic from such a slanted point of view. It is one thing that this nonsense appears on the "Quebec bashing" article, that no person could take seriously; but here it is offensive.--Lance ^talk 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical clean-up in 24 hrs, or it's deleted.--Lance ^talk 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't hold us hostage. Wholesale blanking is vandalism. Don't do it. It is not the Wikipedia way. It will be reverted. Hu 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm very much opposed to the blanking of this section, I believe it wrong that the "controversy" - but one part of Richler's career (and an extremely small percentage of his writing) - dominates what is a biographical article. I note that the word count is nearly twice that of the text it follows (which also includes reference to the issue). The inclusion of this section (in an earlier and shorter form) has been discussed previously. Another user took it upon himself to edit it from 882 words to 98 words, which seemed to me appropriate (though I would much prefer incorporating the text in the body of the biography). I note it has now grown to nearly 1200 words. Victoriagirl 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movedfrom User: Hu's talk page:

Perhaps prior to uttering hostile and paternalistic comments, you should fully read the "discussion" page. There appears to be a consensus that the politically motivated attacks against Richler be removed; even by those hostile to him.--Lance ^talk 03:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance, you are the one who above uttered the hostile threat to blank the section, not me. Your first post on this discussion page was your threat. Nothing I wrote above in reply was hostile. Here is my reply on my Talk page to the note you left there: "I did read the discussion page. Ultimatums, threats and hostage-making demands are not the way here. Hu 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

You have a strange conception of vandalism, hostility, and threats. When I make a calm and reasoned response on your talk page [2], it is not hostile or vandalism, even if you choose to call it "vandalism" in your edit summaries when you delete my responses [3], [4]. At the same time you seem to feel it is not hostile when you make threats and try to hold the page hostage to prompt us into action that suits you.

Please calm down. I have a position on the content of the section but I have not publicly stated it because I had to first respond to your threatened blanking. Hu 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Byng High School

I have a copy of the 1956 BBHS Year Book; it was still predominently Jewish then. It now houses the Sun Youth charity.

From Professionally Speaking, "School Days, Not So Golden Rule Days," by Mordecai Richler:

[Note the English-language place names.--Lance ^talk 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

<copyrighted text snipped by administrator> --Lance ^talk 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)].[reply]

--Lance ^talk 07:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu, this is vandalism.--Lance ^talk 00:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Copyright violations official policy ("Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in our encyclopedia, and we actively strive to find and remove any that we find"), Removing copyrighted text of an article printed in Professionally Speaking magazine. [5] — Hu 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about threats of "blanking." There is not a copyright violation here.--Lance ^talk 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the referenced official policy: "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". Also read the official Policy section of Wikipedia:Fair use. Text must meet all of the criteria, but the text you included fails criteria 1, 2 and 3. You have some commonly held misconceptions about fair use relating to non-commercial applications. Hu 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu, you are deleting my contributions; that is vandalism; and I'm seeing red.--Lance ^talk 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proceeded calmly according to Wikipedia policy. You need to reduce your anger level and begin to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia practice and policy. Hu 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with the interpretation of Hu's actions as vandalism - on the contrary, I believe they are justified and have been made in good faith. Before this edit war escalates, may I suggest that a request for comment (WP:RfC) be sought in this matter. Victoriagirl 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My commentary on the text cannot be construed as subject to any copyright; deleting it is, indeed, vandalism.--Lance ^talk 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance is, of course, correct that his commentary need not be removed as it is given freely. That said, the use of the Richler text is a violation of Wikipedia policy and should be removed. Again, if there is any confusion concerning this matter, I suggest WP:RfC be employed. Victoriagirl 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then employ WP:RfC. I will delete parts of the text not material to my commentary that is made to bring out issues that belong in a biographical article.--Lance ^talk 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salting a copyright violation with commentaries is not a backdoor way to violate the copyright. It was 16 hours after you first copied the text in here that you were called on the copyright violation. Only after that did you begin to tack little commentaries into it as a way of attempting to evade a claim of copyright violation. The correct way to make a point by way of an article like this is to explain your point, reference the URL of the online article, and then possibly quote a few sentences from it. Quoting the whole article is definitely a violation of copyright, whether or not you have sprinkled your comments inside it. Hu 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu your conduct on this page is reprehensible; and has been hostile since the start; you're being a bully by deleting my comments on this page, vandalising my personal talk page; and, now, making presumptious allegations of my motives (the "salting" comment). Also, respect the chronology of comments on this page: You are bullying your comments ahead of my own. As I said I will remove inessential Richler text.--Lance ^talk 01:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk pages are a way to communicate. When I make calm and reasoned responses on your User Talk page [6], it is not hostile or vandalism, even if you choose to call it "vandalism" in your edit summaries when you delete my responses [7], [8]. You need to distinguish between your User page and your User Talk page. Hu 01:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the above is an infringement of copyright. As such I believe it should be removed as it runs against official Wikipedia policy (WP:C). I encourage discussion on this matter. Victoriagirl 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you advancing a legal theory? No commercial use is being made of the aforesaid text.--Lance ^talk 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advancing a legal theory, rather I am pointing out that the posting appears to run against Wikipedia policy. Victoriagirl 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it does.--Lance ^talk 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting verbatim the text of a magazine or newspaper article or book chapter on an article's talk page is a violation of WP's copyright policy. You may not fully understand the implications of copyright as they pertain to Wikipedia, but this site does not constitute a noncommercial use of the text — because GFDL licensing does not preclude somebody else making commercial use of our content, we are not a noncommercial use even though we don't directly charge a fee for accessing WP itself. And even if WP did count as a noncommercial use, the text itself would have to be licensed under a "noncommercial use permitted" license — copyright law does not extend a blanket permission to copy and paste other people's work just because you're not directly attempting to profit from it. Acting as an administrator, I have removed the disputed text; if you wish to discuss the content of the article, I'd recommend that you do one of three things: (a) link to an external site that has legitimate copyright permission to reprint the text, (b) selectively quote one or two specific sentences that you want to highlight, or (c) provide the page citations and summarize what Richler said. A few carefully selected short quotes can be justified as "fair use"; quoting the entire article, or significant chunks of it, verbatim cannot. Bearcat 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know more about Wikipedia policies than I do, so I defer to your greater knowledge. But why did my annotations need to be deleted?--Lance ^talk 03:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the copyrighted text excluded, the annotations would have been contextless and therefore confusing. If you restructure your contributions in one of the ways I suggest above, instead of wholesale copying and pasting, then you're more than welcome to add your comments back to the page...but there was no real point in my leaving them there while removing the text they were responding to, since they wouldn't make sense with their context removed. Bearcat 03:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing improper referenes

I removed the following because any claim made that refers to an "unnamed University" is not encyclopedic material.

"As an internationally acclaimed novelist, Richler was commissioned to write about the province in such publications as The New Yorker giving him a wide audience outside of Canada. He alleged there was a high level of anti-semetism in Quebec and especially among members of the Parti Québecois. In 1992, journalist Jean-François Lisée reported that René Lévesque was accused of anti-semitism in the United States and was barred from speaking at an unnamed American university as a direct result of Richler's writing.^[1]

-

Political analyst Jean-François Lisée, an admirer of Richler's fiction but critic of his political essays, noted that Lévesque, one of the first journalists to enter the Dachau camp, was "a friend of the Israeli cause". Lisée wrote in his book Dans l'oeil de l'aigle that being called an anti-semite, in the United States that he so loved, was Lévesque's "greatest chagrin"

J Martin81 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When I look at the disputed section in this article, I have to think what User:Jimbo Wales said here is good and wise counsel:[9]

It is often that case that the worst bios of living people involve a skeleton bio with a huge puke of negative information (properly sourced) in the middle, so that the article as a whole is completely biased.

Because of certain cultural norms against ever ever ever removing any precious little tidbit of information, despite it boring the reader to tears and being a form of attack and bias, it can be hard for people to combat it.

Remember, NPOV is non-negotiable. Wikipedia is not a data dump.

Quality requires editorial judgment and good sense.

--Jimbo

Thanks for your contribution.--Lance ^talk 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Williams: College or University?

I think the confusion regarding the status of Sir George Williams can be explained by the following from the Corncordia University website: "Sir George Williams College received its formal charter as a college or university in March 1948, although it continued to operate as the formal educational arm of the Montreal YMCA until 1967. The institution changed its name from “College” to “University” in 1959." I'm pleased to recognize Wikipedia as a reliable and correct source in this matter. As Richler attended the institution a few years before it changed its name, I suggest Sir George Williams College be used for the purposes of this article. Victoriagirl 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wrote in the edit summary.--Lance ^talk 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm misreading your edit summary. Victoriagirl 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huhh?--Lance ^talk 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Royal Cemetery

I have seen the grave in the Mount Royal Cemetery, that is not a Jewish cemetery. (Not being buried in a Jewish cemetery has Jewish theological implications.)

In Barney's Version, Richler wrote that Barney would be buried in a protestant cemetery with a monument bearing a Magen David; next to his gentile spouses' grave, bearing a christian symbol. This is exactly the case at Richler's grave site.--Lance ^talk 23:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where this issue is addressed in the article - perhaps it featured in an earlier version and has since been removed. That said, I do think it necessary to record the clarify that the writer's widow, Florence Richler, is very much alive. Victoriagirl 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say she was dead. The monument for her is erected next to Richler's grave, (the same stone, I recall); and is as previously described. Since the assertion is from my own reading of Barney's Version and personally visiting the grave site, it is WP:original research; and, therefore, I cannot put this information into the article. I was merely stating that Barney's Version is, in at least some respects, biographical.--Lance ^talk 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I say you had. I merely thought to clarify the matter. Victoriagirl 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Jewish Literature

Some good models for this article are Saul Bellow, (the only Montrealer to win a Nobel Prize in Literature), and the extraordinary novelist Philip Roth.--Lance ^talk 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preview, Group, Summarize

Thank you for your edits. Please consider 1) Using the Show Preview button (above the Save Page button), 2) Grouping edits together to reduce the number of edits in the page History to make it easier for fellow editors to monitor the edits, 3) Describing each edit with the Edit Summary box (above the Save Page button), 4) New comments on a Talk page are appended at the end of the page. To place them at the top would "bullying them ahead", as some put it. Hu 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Urbain Street removed?

Reference to St. Urbain Street has been removed by an anon IP. [10] I think the street plays a pivotal role in his fiction and needs proper mention and discussion in the article. Hu 05:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it does.--Lance ^talk 15:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all the references?

Hi. Just did a bit of sub-sectioning to the intro, which I welcome comments on. But what I wanted to ask was what's going on with all the citations? There something like 20+ citations but they don't take you anywhere, usually they go to reference notes at bottom. Has someone block deleted all the references notes, or...? Shawn in Montreal 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. It's in the Controversy section at bottom, where all the references seem to be missing. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Controversy Section?

Time to revisit this one. I propose the entire section be deleted. It now hangs off the end of the article. And it inflates the importance of the controversy. So there is no sense of proportion or context. I have the summed up the whole things in a few short sentences and added it to the new "proponents and detractors" section. So the controvery section is now redundant. Let's eliminate it. Thoughts?

The thing is that this section should be seen in the whole context of the Quebec bashing article where this text originates. That page goes into very serious detail about all sorts of issues, but is too overburdened if all of this is left there. Yet in order to see a nuanced picture of the controversy this kind of detail is required. It isn't meant to slander Richler, or inflate the importance of the controversy. But he is rightly or wrongly seen as a "chief" Quebec basher amongst nationalist circles, and so some real commentary is required on the issue. Peregrine981 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing comment is factually incorrect and ill-informed; the whole section in question is factually false, and amounts to hate speech (not uncommon from this gang of French supremicists). I have adjured for a long time that this section be removed.--Lance ^talk 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it factually incorrect? Check the talk pages from this page and the Quebec bashing article, and you'll find at least a couple of discussions arguing about the transfer of the text back and forth. If there's anything factually incorrect in the article please remove it. It most certainly is not hate speech. It is quite even handed in my opinion, and well referenced. Peregrine981 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:original research includes a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.--Lance ^talk 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question makes numerous factually based assertions, all backed up by reliable sources. There's no synthesis going on. If there is, then pretty much every wikipedia article is guilty of the same. Also, there is no "position" being advanced. Arguments are made defending Richler as well as criticizing him. If you think these are inadquately balanced, then kindly improve them rather than deleting the section unilaterally. Peregrine981 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the references fail to support the text in the article; that is, the footnotes are fraudulent; what is left is unencyclopedic hysterical ravings. Wikipedia is not about advancing your political, or other, oppinions.--Lance ^talk 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references are very accurate. I will admit I have not checked every single one, but all that I know of are good. Neither is this all "my" text as with any wikipedia article, there are different authors. I object to the removal of verifiable information from the article without any attempt to replace it.

I don't understand why you think I'm POV pushing. Richler is defended in numerous instances in this passage. If anyone is POV pushing it is you, since you seem to be unable to accept the inclusion of any material which contravenes your own opinions. Please enumerate specific objections on the talk page before removing information which has stood for months. Peregrine981 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you removed the dispute tag, then you wrote: "If there's anything factually incorrect in the article please remove it." Now you admit: "The references are very accurate. I will admit I have not checked every single one, but all that I know of are good." Unlike you, I reviewed the references and they do not support the text; accordingly, they were removed. I have no interest in an edit war. I suggest you, in the circumstances, defend the inclusion of what are fraudulent additions to the article.--Lance ^talk 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that this article is 100% accurate, hence my offer for you to remove incorrect items. However, instead of working in good faith you have removed everything, most of which I know to be accurate. If wikipedia contributors had to vouch for all of the information in an article every time they added something, the concept simply wouldn't work. It is not incumbent on me to prove every assertion in the article before we allow any of it. Please list specific objections, which I am perfectly willing to entertain, as I did not write the whole thing, in order to improve the article. I'm getting pretty tired of your POV attacks on this article, and belligerent attitude. Peregrine981 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been satisfied with any version of the section most recently titled "Controversy"; my primary concern being length in that it could be said to dominate what is, after all, meant as a biographical entry. While I support efforts to edit down the section, I cannot support the removal of all the information it contains. With all due respect, I think that much debate could be avoided by more detailed explanations of the recent edits. For example, I find the edit summary accompanying the removal of a paragraph dealing with "À partir d'aujourd'hui", leaves me with nothing but questions; particularly as it concerns an unfortunate error about which Richler himself wrote. I am not saying that the deleted paragraph was without fault. I have taken exception to the words "Richler linked Quebec Premier René Lévesque to Nazism", and would argue that this be changed. However, I am unaware of any other errors, in fact or counter-policy, and welcome the opportunity to further explore and discuss this and other paragraphs. Victoriagirl 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that a shortening, and incorporation into the main text of the article is in order. However, I think that it is a disservice to the article if we remove too much. The major claims should remain, as I feel one of wikipedia's strenghts is as a place that one can find specific information often omitted for brevity on more commercial sites. The rest of the article is perhaps too brief, and we should focus on improving it rather than destroying the "controversy" section. It is obviously a subject that remains of popular interest. Peregrine981 07:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is duplicitous to contemporaneously assert that Richler is "seen as a 'chief' Quebec basher," (a case of assuming what you want to prove), and accuse me of "POV attacks on this article, and belligerent attitude." It appears that both you, and the gang you advocate for, are willing to invent sources to advance your attack against Richler. I hope I am not the only contributor here who is opposed to your agenda--Lance ^talk 11:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Vandal Bot Out of Control

Help! I've been attacked by a rogue bot that falsely thinks I'm posting "nonsense" and committing vandalism. It's wiped out my last five edits. Not sure if I'm banned or blocked. But as a basis for further discussion, may I ask someone to revert my last 5 edits? You may not agree with them. But at least it would move things forward. It's seen unfair to be shut out of the discussion. (Some of the main changes are also below)

Proponents and critics

Richler frequently said in interviews that his goal was to be an honest witness to his time and place, and to write at least one book that would be read after his death. His work was championed by journalists Robert Fulford and Peter Gzowski, among others. Admirers praised Richler for daring to tell uncomfortable truths. A 2004 oral biography by Michael Posner was entitled The Last Honest Man.

Detractors called Richler's satire heavy-handed and noted his propensity for recycling material. Some critics thought Richler more adept at sketching striking scenes than crafting coherent narratives. Some Jews thought Richler perpetuated offensive stereotypes. Richler's ambivalent relationship with Montreal's Jewish community was captured in Mordecai and Me, a book by Joel Yanofsky published in 2003.

Richler had a long and contentious history with Quebec nationalists. Nationalists called Richler's views about Quebec society outdated. They said his ridicule of Quebec language laws was unfair. A particular sore point was the wide international audience Richler attracted for his journalism and essays. Nationalists accused Richler of Quebec bashing. The attacks on Richler escalated after the publication of his of 1992 book "Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country." Some nationalists said Richler lacked standing to comment on Quebec politics in the first place because he had never mastered French. Richler defended himself by saying that he opposed political orthodoxy and narrow-minded nationalism of all kinds. Richler had written that he understood French well enough to read newspaper articles. He admitted embarassment at his poor spoken French, but pointed out that he had sent his children to French schools. criticism

Peregrine981

Peregrine981 added to the article:

Despite this, he received generally, but not universally, positive treatment in French-speaking Quebec media at his passing. It often made a distinction between Richler the author and Richler the polemist. Conlogue, Ray. "Facing up to both sides of Mordecai." Globe & Mail (July 25, 2001)

This user has not only introduced a factually false assertion, but used a discredited source, Ray Conlogue, (see my comments at Talk:Quebec bashing), to make it appear legitimate. (And concealed that it was a hostile and biased source.) Unfortunately this type of sloppy editing characterizes the entire "controversy section," from which this user removed the dispute tag. When references that are fraudulent, in the sense that they do not support the text in the article, or are offensive, such as comparing Mein Kamph to Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!, then there is a real problem with this user's edits. The whole "controversy section" is apparently an attempt to demonstrate that Richler is a "Quebec-basher," whatever that means, that, of course, begs the question; that is, it assumes what it wants to prove. WP:original research and WP:Reliable sources apply to this user.--Lance ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: Jimmy Wales about "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [11] [12] [13] [14]

I, too, have argued against the use of Conlogue as a source, but assume good faith here. I see no evidence that the editor concealed anything - an extremely serious charge. After all, the editor clearly identified Conlogue as the author and the edition of the newspaper in which he made his claim. That this writing was in The Globe and Mail, "Canada's National Newspaper", is worthy of some note. As such, his claim may be relevant, as is Conlogue's relationship with Richler.

Finally, if I may again address the issue of Mein Kampf. Was it outrageous that the book was compared to Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!? Was such a comparison offensive? My personal answer to both these question is "yes". That said, the fact is that such a comparison was made by Daniel Latouche in the March 28, 1992 edition of Le Devoir. I believe it important to include as it provides an indication of the breadth of reaction to the book. Victoriagirl 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Kamph advocated the murder of the entire Jewish nation and succeded in first robbing all of Europe's Jews of their accumulated wealth, including gold teeth, and then murdering 6 million souls, including 1 million children. This blueprint for murder called Jews "vermin" and advocated the extermination of an entire people. That French Canadians chose such comparisons so easily shows that they share their parents and grandparents views who marched in pro-nazi rallies, to which Richler was a witness. That nazi comparisons are made about a Jewish author, (now the case with muslims with the same objectives), demonstrate an attack on all Jews; and that is what was Le Devoir's point. Esther Delisle's book documented, among other things, Le Devoir's open antisemitism prior to the Holocaust. Failing to put this hurtful accusation in context, an attack on all Jews, rather than attempting to create a case for the existence of some concept herein called "Quebec bashing" (that exists only in Wikipedia) is not encyclopedic. The hysteria of French Quebec needs to be dealt with in a formal manner, including, unapolagetically, its long history of antisemitism, that doesn't advocate the existence of "Quebec bashing." All of Richler's writing is informed by the antisemitism he was subjected to in Quebec.--Lance ^talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: " I believe it important to include as it provides an indication of the breadth of reaction to the book." Yes, but objectively and in context; and not to advocate the existence of "Quebec bashing."--Lance ^talk 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with both Mein Kampf and the facts of the Holocaust. I'm aware of only one French Canadian, Daniel Latouche, who chose to make the comparison between Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! and Mein Kampf. If there were others, I suggest that this information should be added to the article.

It is my opinion that this information is provided in an objective manner. Again, I see no evidence that the paragraphs in question were added to the entry as a means of promoting the existence "Quebec bashing". If you have information to the contrary, I do wish you would present it. Victoriagirl 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in the edit history for Mordecai Richler and [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peregrine981#Quebec_bashing] as well. Also see my comments at Talk:Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country.--Lance ^talk 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't agree. That the paragraphs under discussion - which have been deleted numerous times in recent days with neither discussion nor consensus [15] [16][17][18][19] - are edited versions of those once found in the Quebec bashing article is inconsequential as they featured a factual and balanced account of the reaction to Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!. This was a significant event and must be included in any proper discussion of Richler and his work (though have argued that it is better suited for the entry on the book itself). It would be incorrect not to cover this episode because some might hold it up as an example of something they term "Quebec bashing". Need I add, again, that the paragraphs under discussion, indeed the entire "Controversy" section, does not include the words "Quebec bashing"?

I cannot agree that the communication cited is evidence of some sort of agenda. To these eyes, it is nothing more than a discussion as to where certain information should be placed. I, too, have participated in similar discussions concerning the very same material - and my objection to the very existence of an article entitled Quebec bashing is well-documented. Although I have done my very best to improve upon it, I dare say I am one of the entry's more vocal opponents.

Finally, I remain interested in learning who, other than Daniel Latouche, has compared Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! to Mein Kampf? Victoriagirl 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Controverse autour du livre Oh Canada Oh Québec!" video, Archives, Société Radio-Canada, March 31, 1992, retrieved September 22, 2006

[SRCLISEE-1] "Controverse autour du livre Oh Canada Oh Québec!" video, Archives, Société Radio-Canada, March 31, 1992, retrieved September 22, 2006

[1]