Talk:Jan Wong controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV dispute 2 Deprecated 3 Linguistic discrimination 4 Does anyone speak french here ? 5 Copy editing 6 Montréal’s Crime Rate 7 Mark for Deletion? 8 Disappearance of the Article

[edit] NPOV dispute

This entry, in its current form, seems almost entirely concerned with painting with Mrs. Wong's article in the worst possible light. I don't have an opinion on Mrs. Wong's article itself (in fact, I haven't read it and didn't even know about the controversy until reading about it here on Wikipedia), but this entry is definitely not neutral in tone and needs to be fixed. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This piece is shockingly biased and should be corrected or deleted. There is a valid discussion to be had around the Jan Wong column and the political reaction to it, but this entry constitutes character assassination masquerading as discussion. For the record, I have been the subject of Jan Wong's reporting, and I found her work to be of a consistently high standard. Sure, she is provocative. Good for her. It would appear that with this column, she touched a raw nerve indeed. We used to say, "If the shoe fits, wear it." Apparently that rule has changed to, "If the shoe fits, beat up on the cobbler." Serial Comma 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I don't have an opinion on Wong's opinion piece - I haven't read it - but she is a totally legit journalist. No one seems to be concerned with the absolute chutzpah of Parliament calling on a journalist to waive her free speech. Accordingly, I'm tagging the article. Carolynparrishfan 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's the tag! Duh! Carolynparrishfan 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecated

Er, who exactly decided "pure laine" was "deprecated"? It may be deeply politically incorrect to use nowadays, rather like the terms "Negro" or "Jewess" in English, but "deprecated" suggests it has been excised from the somehow language, which is obviously false.

We should be able to say Jan Wong used the term without some mealymouthed qualifier explaining modern Quebecers don't use the term much now. Come to think of it, if it's really that important to mention, then pure laine deserves an article of its own. --Saforrest 21:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic discrimination

The subject of Jan Wong's article is a very relevant issue.

If one is to interview those individuals who are not French bilingual, there would be ample evidence that Jan Wong's observations are highly perceptive.

It is interesting to note that those who reacted so negatively to her article are successful bilingual individuals who would not have had experienced the bias the article speaks of.

The lack of reaction from the rest of Canada should indicate that this entry lacks objectivity.

[edit] Does anyone speak french here ?

Jan Wong lived in Quebec for years and never bothered to learn the language. No wonder she feels discriminated against. If I lived in Toronto for years and didn't bother to learn english I would feel discirminated against too. But then again, maybe i could learn ? She knows nothing about Quebec because she never made the effort to understand anything.

Actually, Wong was born and raised in the west end of Montreal during the 1950s and 60s. It was an entirely English-speaking part of town. There was no practical need for anglophones to speak French at the time. I think Wong's analysis was bullshit, but I don't think you can fault her personally for not speaking French, especially considering the last time she lived in the city was in the early 1970s. Montreal was very different then. --Kilgore MTL 09:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing

I tried to simply copy edit this article, but never got past the “article” section. The problem for me was that many of the sentences read as critiques of Wong’s Globe & Mail piece, as written by the Wikipedia author, rather than the Wikipedia author presenting aspects of critiques of Wong's essay from (mass) publications. Therefore, I am uncertain how to edit the copy so that it more neutrally presents Wong's arguments and the published critiques of them, since I often times cannot distinguish between those critiques that were published after Wong's article and those criticisms that are actually the product of the Wikipedia author.

My understanding of the role of Wikipedia as it would relate to the so-called “Jan Wong Controversy” is that the author of an article relating to the matter is supposed to fairly present the two sides of the debate. He is not to use the creation of the Wikipedia article for the purposes of producing a (self-)published essay in which he also takes Ms. Wong to task.

I think that before anyone can copy edit this article, the origiator of it needs to return to the article and distinguish his critiques from those that can be sourced to publications.

Any suggestions? Comments?

SpikeToronto (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal’s Crime Rate

The text in the ARTICLE section had a statement to the effect that Montreal has one of the lowest crime rates in North America. The phrase, “in North America,” is misleading since it is a truism that every Canadian metropolitan area has a lower, per capita crime rate than comparable American metropolitan areas. Total bans on handguns will tend to reduce overall crime rates in any country.

However, in Canada itself, Montreal has the fourth highest crime rate, while Canada's largest city, Toronto, bottoms out the list of cities having populations of 500,000 or more. (See: Sauvé, Julie. “Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004.” Juristat Volume 25, number 5. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Statistics Canada. 2005. [1])

SpikeToronto (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark for Deletion?

The idea behind this wikiarticle is a good one. The Jan Wong essay published on the front page of the Globe & Mail did give rise to controversy in Canada, particularly in the province of Québec where it was especially relevant. However, it is difficult when reading this wikiarticle to discern which of the criticisms and viewpoints in opposition to Ms. Wong are from articles published by other commentators and which are the critical viewpoints of the wikiauthor.

Those that are the critical viewpoint of the wikiauthor violate Wikipedia policy and need to be excised from the text. Ultimately, only the wikiauthor knows which of the critical viewpoints are his/hers and which are those of independent authors and are merely being reported herein. If the wikiauthor cannot be pursuaded to return to the wikiarticle and remove those cricial comments which cannot be substantiated by citation to independent writers, then perhaps the article should simply be deleted. This would be unfortunate as the entire Wong incident proved very insightful vis-à-vis the relationship of Québec to its immigrant populations and the place of Québec in the Canadian confederation.

My next question is, should I go ahead and place the appropriate tag for proposed deletion at the top of the page and await discussion, or should we have discussion first? As a wikinewbie I feel insufficiently experienced to make the call. SpikeToronto (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearance of the Article

I don’t know if anyone will ever notice, but the Jan Wong article has completely disappeared and insteads redirects to a small section of the Anti-Quebec sentiment article. Is this allowed at Wikipedia? To just up and delete an entire article without any discussion? Also, the small section of the article of which the Jan Wong Controversy is now a part reads more like an op/ed piece and less like an encyclopedia article than did the larger Jan Wong article it purports to replace!

… I just don’t get it …

SpikeToronto (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)