Talk:Quiet Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Provincial equivalent of Nationalization

Power firms (etc.) were nationalized -- but not to the federal (used to be 'confederational,' to distinguish it from the US of A) government of Canada, only to the government of the province of Quebec. I read that there was some textual difficulty because Canada is divided into "provinces," so the natural form would be "provincialized," though this has the connotation "made real hick and without any urbane sentiment." Could someone put together a nice phrase to explain this? --Sobolewski 20:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Various POV issues with recent edits by JillandJack

• Because the time frame represents a period of sustained terrorist bombings, robberies, and murders culminating with the kidnapping and assassination of Quebec Vice-Premier Pierre Laporte and the kidnapping of the British Trade Commissioner, James Cross, to many Canadians the term "Quiet" is seen as something of an oxymoron.

This sentence not only contains inapropriate non-neutral language, it also introduces a personal opinion which the author attributes to "many" Canadians. Many historical periods overlap, one starting before the previous one ends. Indeed, many people relatively knowledgeable of the Octobre Crisis but unaware of the Quiet revolution might be surprised by the term "Quiet". This remark is welcomed in the talk page, but is not relevant in the first paragraph of this article.

• The term "Quiet Revolution" was supposed to signify peaceful changes that, because of the terroism, was very much noticed in the rest of Canada.

There is problem here. The changes brought by the Quiet revolution and the changes brought by the terrorist actions of the FLQ are not the same and not related at all. This comment is again the opinion of its author and is far from being relevant to the article.

• This valid paragraph:

The province's natural resources were sold to foreign investors; iron being infamously sold to the U.S.-based Iron Ore Company for one cent a ton. Only 50% of the province's population had attended secondary school, and the salary discrepancy between francophones and anglophones was considerable (in favor of the anglophones). Historians have referred to this period as the Grande noirceur (Great Darkness), but most will add that this period is often perceived as worse than it was.

• Was replaced by what appears to be the prejudiced opinion of the author on the subject:

Because of the agrarian, anti-business policies of the Roman Catholic Church that had been rigidly in place since the beginning, it was English immigrants, notably the Scotch Quebecers who invested and built the Qjuebec industrialized economy, making it the foremost economic center in Canada and a major force in North america. However, the Roman Catholic Church led the rejection of an industrialization effort by former Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau. Because of the failure of the ensuing Duplessis government of Quebec to promote business and to establish university business training for francophones to match the rest of Canada and the U.S., the income levels between rural French workers and those in the business world began to widen at a time when Canada was looking to grow. he country followed the massive industrialization and technological innovations going on in the United States while trying to cope with the Great Depression. Because French-Canadians chose not participate in business solutions to, it increased the number of Canadians from other provinces of Canada willing to fill the void.

These "explanations" not only fall short of providing answers to the many questions being asked in the 1960s, they are severly biased against Quebec's Franco Catholic majority. The problems of Quebec are blamed on Quebecers alone, ignoring the fact that Quebec was colonized by a foreign power much like Ireland.

• This valid paragraph:

To this day, the issue of a special status for Quebec within the Canadian Confederation or the attainment of sovereignty of this state is the subject of a fundamental and still unresolved debate. Since the end of the Second World War, Canada has lived through multiple failed attempts at reforming its constitution to accommodate Quebec while two referendums on Quebec's independence were rejected by a majority of Quebec voters.

• Was replaced again by what appears to be some justifications of events by the modifications' author:

To this day, the issue of a special status for Quebec within the Canadian Confederation or the attainment of sovereignty for the province is the subject of a fundamental and still unresolved debate by sovereignists while the majority of Quebecs have grown tired iof the issue. Since the end of World War II, the Government of Canada, led by Prime Ministers from Quebec have made many changes to work with Quebec including the entrenchment of the French language into the Constitution. Multiple attempts failed at reforming the Canadian constitution to accommodate Quebec sovereignists, while two referendums on Quebec's independence were rejected by a majority of Quebec voters.

Extremely biased an irrational, there is hardly anything there that could be defended.

• This paragraph was added:

Despite the continuing disagreements between federalists and sovereignists, Quebec has progressed since the Quiet Revolution but the uncertainty caused by the threat of an independence vote has limited the type of business willing to invest in Quebec. The flight of capital and emigration of more than 4000,000 anglo/allophones following the 1976 election of the separatrist Part Quebecos goveerment severely hurt the provinces economy. Unemployment remains much higher than the national average, and the limitations on business by provincial language laws is a reality that restricts both expansion and investment. With the Roman Catholic Church no longer in control of education and with virtually no control over their lives, the Quebec.

Again extremely biased, this one paragraph includes various myths on Quebec. The mass exodus of 400,000 Quebecers being blamed solely on the 1976 election, the unemployement rate being much higher in Quebec than elsewhere in the federation, the negative effect of Quebec's language policy on the economy are all fabricated myths that can be proven innacurate by a simple look at the facts.

• This paragraph was added:

Nevertheless, it would be almost twenty years later when quality business programs were put in place in Quebec's French-language universitie that would equal those of universities elsewhere in North America.

This assertion is likely to be wrong on the facts, but I would have to verify. In any case, this would most likely be a matter of opinion. Are there good measurable indicators of the quality of programs in one university versus another? How do we evaluate this?

Can we discuss this modifications so we can fix/remove them? -- Mathieugp 20:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JillandJack seem determined to revert any changes with which they disagree and not to engage in any discussion. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia dispute resolution -- I've never had to use it before -- but I wonder if this is an appropriate time to invoke it. Can anyone offer some advice? (The problems are with this article, the Jean Marchand article, and a few others.) HistoryBA 22:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, his changes are still in the article, so yes it would be time to have this dispute moderated. I've seen a few other disputes on the site, and the situation in those was pretty similar to this one. If the JillandJack still won't show up to defend his reverts then he could be banned from these articles. Red Star

I agree with all the comments/complaints made by Mathieugp, hopefully this article can be kept NPOV. Dan Carkner 15:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never...

...read such a load of drivel like this in my life. I lived through this period in Quebec's history, and I felt that I was reading a discription of events from some alternate universe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.4.52 (talk • contribs)

I have not...

...understood your unexposed point! What is your opposition; what is this horrendous "drivel"? Also, please sign your post, as Wikipedia politely demands. --Liberlogos 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment. This article is confusing, shows different bias in different sections, most sections are not NPOV. The Jill&Jack revisionism/opinions/vandalism is still present. Also, the reference to the Duplessis Orphans is brought in in a very clumsy way that is very misleading. Everything was far from perfect during the Duplessis regime but reducing the health care and education work of the catholic church of the time to the example of the Duplessis Orphans is disconnected from reality. It may not have been the intent of the editor but it is the result. A very big cleanup of the whole article is needed here.

Probably already noted...

...but "JillandJack" is/was a sockpuppet of a banned user. If you find poor prose of theirs in this articel (That managed to survive this long), have no hesitation about rewriting it wholesale or just revoking it. 68.39.174.238 07:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

United Providence?

From the header: "The creation of a United Providence, or État-Providence (welfare state)."

Is 'United Providence' an actual term used in Quebec? - because the correct translation of État-Providence is 'welfare state', as the article already says. ObeliskBJM^talk 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Population claim

The link claiming the francophone population might drop to 50% is for the city of Montreal. Furthermore, assimilation of immigrants into the french language is said to be successful. This paragraph needs to be reworked or dropped altogether. Pendragon39 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited to :

Today, researchers have noted that the low birthrate amongst francophones (the lowest in North America) and a lack of adoption of the French language by allophones (those whose primary language is neither English or French) immigrants could cause the French-speaking population in the city of Montréal to dive below the 50 percent mark in the coming decades. [1]. which much more accurately reflect the content of the article. (It's not a certain thing that the population will drop below 50%, so "could" instead of "will", and restricted only to Montréal (as is clearly set out in the article itself).--65.94.39.177 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is better. I remain unsure about the claim that allophones are not choosing french. The children of immigrants who must go to french school most certainly are learning and speaking french. Pendragon39 03:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Extremely confusing paragraph

"There is no consensus as to election, 1960 provincial election. Similarly, there is no consensus as to when the Quiet Revolution ended, but it is mostly agreed that it was before the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. The political journal Cité Libre is also credited with being an intellectual forum for critics of the Duplessis regime."

What the ----???!!! 189.6.163.237 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

POV: For the worse?

The first sentence in this article seems ever so slightly biased, methinks: "The Quiet Revolution (French: Révolution tranquille) was the 1960s period of rapid change for the worse ". But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong... 76.74.196.169 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have re-written most of the article to take out the verbiage and the errors discussed above, including the bizarre "Stewarts" reference. Please look it over and cosider removing the POV tag. I will put in citations soon. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello - New person here. I've read the Quiet Revolution page for the first time today, and find it fairly neutral, though it could be more extensive. If anyone knows about the role of Frank Scott and his writings as well as his social group (including artists from the École des Beaux Arts) and his role in the writing of the manifesto of the CCF and various tracts written during the Depression, this could add to the background of this period - the Quiet Revolution didn't just simply "start" in the early 60s... .

Also, there is one issue addressed in two separate lines in two separate sections: "Women had few rights: they could not register land in their own names and had other restrictions on property and spousal rights." and the few lines about the Civil Code in another section are related material. In fact, women had no legal rights as people until 1964, with the exception of widows, who were allowed many more rights than married or single women.

This, however, is not something I'm willing to edit on my own as I fear my bias would make it a subject of contention. I am also not a history scholar and don't have citations easily at hand. Katiemur (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Quebec

At the same period, in New-Brunswick, big changes were happening as well. An important university was created, the first Acadian premier (Robichaud) was elected. The province became officially bilingual. Government took over both the education and health systems and there was a great controversy over the expropriation of acadian families to make room for the Kouchibougouac national park. Up here, we usually call those events "La Révolution Tranquille" although we're not in Quebec. I wouder if you guys could make a small section mentioning that there were changes outside of Quebec, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.38.115 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask JillandJack why you removed "Historians have referred to this period as the Grande noirceur (Great Darkness), but most will add that this period is often perceived as worse than it was"? Do you dispute that historians have used this term? That they believe the period is often perceived as worse than it was? HistoryBA 00:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stewarts?

I am puzzled by "the Stewarts of the French regime tried to create industries" from the long paragraph in the first section. It seems to be saying that there were French rulers named Stewart. But Stewart is not a French name - when people (kings of Scotland) named Stewart visited France, the French could not manage the w and they became "Stuarts". My guess is that it means "stewards", but I don't know. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Stuarts have their origins in Brittany; while Breton is not French, are you sure your 'w' story isn't just a folk explanation of the name spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.115.32 (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

missing an important part of the revolution

The quiet revolution is also seen as the end of the economic subordination of French Canadians. There is a paragraph about this in the French version of the article so some information can be taken from there. There is also an interesting article about this [2] --Danbob999 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Secularization"

This section focuses almost elusively on education. While that's fine, the term "secularization" is far too broad a term to describe the differentiation of the educational system. Unless someone wants to write something far more inclusive (church attendance rates, declining beliefs, etc.), "secularization" isn't the best section heading here. I suggest "Changes in education" or "Educational Differentiation" or just about anything else. While secularization was an important part of the QR, this sections doesn't even scratch the surface of that much bigger issue. Thoughts?Jonashart (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, before the QR the church ran the schools (and hospitals). So it's not only about church attendance (which is a personal choice), but more about the separation between church and state. That reform didn't only have an impact on education. --Danbob999 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing Criticism

As it stands, the piece is too bland. There needs to be a section criticizing the quiet revolution. At present, the piece reads like Social Realist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.102 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Second Quiet Revolution

In end 1990s were created autonomy for innuitts as Nunavut fnd land claims from other first nation etc. Is it Second Quiet Revolution?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)