This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've tried to remove some of the POV from this article, which is highly one-sided. Serious criticisms were made of Delisle's work. Interestingly, I've never been able to find any evidence that anyone followed them up. I'm not disagreeing with the contention that some people reacted hysterically to Delisle's work (What? Canada was antisemitic in the 30s? What a shock!), or that they reacted in racist ways. I'm just trying to make the article a little less one-sided (removing descriptions of her work as impeccable, which she disagrees with in the last few paragraphs of The Traitor and the Jew, or the mention of Claude Charron's irrelevant conviction for theft). From Dr. Delisle's interview in the documentary I'd say she'd be the last person to endorse this depiction of the controversy. I have been known to be wrong, though. John FitzGerald 19:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The controversy arose not over the attribution of antisemitism or fascist sympathies to Quebecois – even Delisle's critics readily admit that people like Adrien Arcand were fascist – but that she said Groulx and other nationalists wwere fascists who wanted to deport Jews. John FitzGerald 13:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I finally found an online copy of the article from l'Actualité [1]. I don't see any attack on Delisle, or any acknowledgment that Groulx was any more of a fascist sympathizer than any other Catholic official or than most prominent Canadians at the time, so I modified the article to remove these assertions about the article. If I've missed something in the article let me know. I will be checking a hard copy of the article the next time I'm near the TO reference library.
I also modified "decades long denial" by "supposed." I'm not sure what denial was meant, but if it's that Groulx was antisemitic that hasn't been denied, and if it was that Groulx was an active member of a group of fascist subversives, that possibility wasn't raised before Dr. Delisle raised it. John FitzGerald 00:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I got my hands on a copy of The Traitor and the Jew again, and as I recalled there was nothing in it about contemporary Quebec nationalism being xenophobic or racist, so I took that assertion out. The book also relies heavily on the identification of Groulx with Lambert Closse, an identification which seems highly questionable (she says herself she has no evidence for it, and other evidence suggests he was not Closse), so I noted that in the article, too.
What interests me now is how her critics weren't content just to point out the obvious scholarly problems with her work but had to import paranoid ideas about her antinationalist motivations into the dispute. Even Gary Caldwell, who seems to have done the best job of critiquing her work, had to throw in a few ideas like that. John FitzGerald 14:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have actually read her book, twice. I removed the following text by User:John FitzGerald because in an Encyclopedia we do not repudiate an author's writings by referring to "Many scholars" - an encyclopedia states the scholarly sources and within context. Certainly these comments should be reinstated once the "scholar" is identified with their credentials specified. Further, the last paragraph concerning the "Je me souviens" documentary is patently wrong. A. Lafontaine 18:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Reved text: "Delisle's work was repudiated by many Quebec scholars who acknowledged Groulx's anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitism of some nationalist figures of the 1930s, both of which had been well established by historians, but believed that Delisle had not made her case that Groulx was an active Fascist.
Some also made unverifiable nationalist political arguments, such as that her thesis and book were attempts to depict Québécois as incapable of governing themselves should Quebec achieve sovereignty.
The substantive methodological criticisms which have been made of Delisle's work (without necessarily having been validated) include assertions that:
These issues have been neglected in the anglophone Canadian media, which has shown little interest in the issue generally.
In this documentary Delisle notes that although she believes Quebec nationalist leaders of the 1930s and 1940s were antisemitic, she also believes that evidence supports the contention that French Canadians as a people were less antisemitc than English Canadians."
I wish to point out that the link for the name of the film-maker, Eric Scott (Je me souviens) leads to a discussion of someone who has nothing to do with this film. The Eric Scott who made this film (and many others) is a Montrealer, not an American actor who starred in the Waltons. 24.202.237.214 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a stub about the film-maker which this article is now linked to. If you know anything further about Mr. Scott please flesh out the stud. Thanks. John FitzGerald 13:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
User GraemeLeggett just added that cleanup tag to this article and I most certainly agree this is needed. Since most of the article deals with the Delisle-Richler controversy, I am thinking it might be good to move all that pertains to this subject in a separate article and leave only a paragraph on it here. Any objections? -- Mathieugp 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
About Mathieugp's reasons for moving part of the article: I still don't think anyone will be looking up the article to find out about anything but the controversy. However, I see your points and if it comes down to us being the only people expressing an opinion I'd have no objection to the section about the controversy being moved. John FitzGerald 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed somerone's translation of an external article and the sentence "but concluded that the only truly Quebec fascist movement during the period was the
Parti national social chrétien led by
Joseph Ménard and
Adrien Arcand." Delisle made no claims connecting Lionel Groulx to the Parti national social chrétien and such a detraction isimmaterial to the facts of her biography.
Daniel C. 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Criticism section was removed by JMartin81 as unsourced. However, the letter was clearly sourced, and sources no doubt can be found for the unsourced assertions, so I added some fact tags, changed some words so the implication is not left that Bouchard's claims have been confirmed, and restored the bit about Bouchard.
I left out the bit about Delisle not having found a university job in Quebec. Unless someone is prepared to show that her failure to find a job is the result of her having criticized Groulx I don't see the point (evidence could include such things as unreasonable rejetion of job applications etc.). Her work is academically questionable, although there are people with tenure who've done worse, repeatedly. John FitzGerald 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've tried to remove some of the POV from this article, which is highly one-sided. Serious criticisms were made of Delisle's work. Interestingly, I've never been able to find any evidence that anyone followed them up. I'm not disagreeing with the contention that some people reacted hysterically to Delisle's work (What? Canada was antisemitic in the 30s? What a shock!), or that they reacted in racist ways. I'm just trying to make the article a little less one-sided (removing descriptions of her work as impeccable, which she disagrees with in the last few paragraphs of The Traitor and the Jew, or the mention of Claude Charron's irrelevant conviction for theft). From Dr. Delisle's interview in the documentary I'd say she'd be the last person to endorse this depiction of the controversy. I have been known to be wrong, though. John FitzGerald 19:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The controversy arose not over the attribution of antisemitism or fascist sympathies to Quebecois – even Delisle's critics readily admit that people like Adrien Arcand were fascist – but that she said Groulx and other nationalists wwere fascists who wanted to deport Jews. John FitzGerald 13:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I finally found an online copy of the article from l'Actualité [1]. I don't see any attack on Delisle, or any acknowledgment that Groulx was any more of a fascist sympathizer than any other Catholic official or than most prominent Canadians at the time, so I modified the article to remove these assertions about the article. If I've missed something in the article let me know. I will be checking a hard copy of the article the next time I'm near the TO reference library.
I also modified "decades long denial" by "supposed." I'm not sure what denial was meant, but if it's that Groulx was antisemitic that hasn't been denied, and if it was that Groulx was an active member of a group of fascist subversives, that possibility wasn't raised before Dr. Delisle raised it. John FitzGerald 00:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I got my hands on a copy of The Traitor and the Jew again, and as I recalled there was nothing in it about contemporary Quebec nationalism being xenophobic or racist, so I took that assertion out. The book also relies heavily on the identification of Groulx with Lambert Closse, an identification which seems highly questionable (she says herself she has no evidence for it, and other evidence suggests he was not Closse), so I noted that in the article, too.
What interests me now is how her critics weren't content just to point out the obvious scholarly problems with her work but had to import paranoid ideas about her antinationalist motivations into the dispute. Even Gary Caldwell, who seems to have done the best job of critiquing her work, had to throw in a few ideas like that. John FitzGerald 14:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have actually read her book, twice. I removed the following text by User:John FitzGerald because in an Encyclopedia we do not repudiate an author's writings by referring to "Many scholars" - an encyclopedia states the scholarly sources and within context. Certainly these comments should be reinstated once the "scholar" is identified with their credentials specified. Further, the last paragraph concerning the "Je me souviens" documentary is patently wrong. A. Lafontaine 18:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Reved text: "Delisle's work was repudiated by many Quebec scholars who acknowledged Groulx's anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitism of some nationalist figures of the 1930s, both of which had been well established by historians, but believed that Delisle had not made her case that Groulx was an active Fascist.
Some also made unverifiable nationalist political arguments, such as that her thesis and book were attempts to depict Québécois as incapable of governing themselves should Quebec achieve sovereignty.
The substantive methodological criticisms which have been made of Delisle's work (without necessarily having been validated) include assertions that:
These issues have been neglected in the anglophone Canadian media, which has shown little interest in the issue generally.
In this documentary Delisle notes that although she believes Quebec nationalist leaders of the 1930s and 1940s were antisemitic, she also believes that evidence supports the contention that French Canadians as a people were less antisemitc than English Canadians."
I wish to point out that the link for the name of the film-maker, Eric Scott (Je me souviens) leads to a discussion of someone who has nothing to do with this film. The Eric Scott who made this film (and many others) is a Montrealer, not an American actor who starred in the Waltons. 24.202.237.214 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a stub about the film-maker which this article is now linked to. If you know anything further about Mr. Scott please flesh out the stud. Thanks. John FitzGerald 13:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
User GraemeLeggett just added that cleanup tag to this article and I most certainly agree this is needed. Since most of the article deals with the Delisle-Richler controversy, I am thinking it might be good to move all that pertains to this subject in a separate article and leave only a paragraph on it here. Any objections? -- Mathieugp 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
About Mathieugp's reasons for moving part of the article: I still don't think anyone will be looking up the article to find out about anything but the controversy. However, I see your points and if it comes down to us being the only people expressing an opinion I'd have no objection to the section about the controversy being moved. John FitzGerald 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed somerone's translation of an external article and the sentence "but concluded that the only truly Quebec fascist movement during the period was the
Parti national social chrétien led by
Joseph Ménard and
Adrien Arcand." Delisle made no claims connecting Lionel Groulx to the Parti national social chrétien and such a detraction isimmaterial to the facts of her biography.
Daniel C. 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Criticism section was removed by JMartin81 as unsourced. However, the letter was clearly sourced, and sources no doubt can be found for the unsourced assertions, so I added some fact tags, changed some words so the implication is not left that Bouchard's claims have been confirmed, and restored the bit about Bouchard.
I left out the bit about Delisle not having found a university job in Quebec. Unless someone is prepared to show that her failure to find a job is the result of her having criticized Groulx I don't see the point (evidence could include such things as unreasonable rejetion of job applications etc.). Her work is academically questionable, although there are people with tenure who've done worse, repeatedly. John FitzGerald 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)