Talk:Lower Canada Rebellion

message: Are Les Fils de la Liberté a subgroup of Les Patriotes? I get the impression from reading this article that they are the same thing. --Menchi 00:33, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
:Probably the street fight led to the pre-emptive arrests...there was probably some violence going on that may have only been remotely connected to the Patriote party, even before 1837. I don't know who the Les Fils are though. (I really only know details from the Upper Canada rebellion, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop 00:42, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Les Patriotes & Les Fils de la Liberté

message: JillandJack, why did you insert the "bias" template on this page? What is the problem? Adam Bishop 07:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: This entire article is a deliberate distortion.
This article says:
*1) Indeed, a first armed conflict occurred in 1837 when the 26 leaders of the Patriote movement chose to resist their arrest by the British army of John Colborne.
**Q: What were they being arrested for? 
**A: The mendates of arrest were emitted by the Governor of the colony, Lord Gosford. Officially, they were arrested for something called "high treason". One little problem: Under British law, "high treason" meant attempting to kill the  King (or Queen) of Great Britain. This is the heritage of the reign of King Eduard III. But, was Victoria in Lower Canada at the time? No. How could they have attempted to kill her in America? 108 men were prosecuted for a crime they could not possibly have committed.
*** Article could probably stand to mention the grounds of arrest. This isn't a POV issue, though, just "not enough information". Bearcat
*2) These events are often misreported, 
**Q: How so and if so, by whom? 
**A: This is a vague statement. The events were and still are misreported by all those who have interest in seeing this period of history forgotten by the population of Quebec and the rest of Canada. The knowledge of these events stimulated Quebec nationalism and is therefore a threat to Canadian unity. Since it is quite a contentious subject to deal with, I suggest we simply remove it for now and work on a neutral way to present this reality.
*3) and the unelected British executive and legislative bodies
**Q: It then contradicts itsef by saying:  Reformer Louis-Joseph Papineau was elected speaker of the colonial assembly in 1815. The assembly, while elected, had little power; its decisions could be vetoed by a legislative council and governor appointed by the British government.
**A: The Legislative Assembly was elective. The Executive Council and the Legislative Council were not elective. This is an accurate statement.
***Agreed with Mathieu, but perhaps the wording could be made a bit less ambiguous. Bearcat
*4) The movement for reform took shape in a period of economic disenfranchisement of the French-speaking majority. In banking, the timber trade, and transportation, Anglophones were disproportionately represented (for example, Anglophones accounted for 5% of the population of Rimouski in 1842, but 50% of the businessmen). 
**Q:Really? If true, why? -- This is an opinion, an encyclopedia is supposed to provide facts. The population of Rimouski in 1842 was how many? How is this example relevant to anything? Statements like this sound eerily familiar from 1933-1945 about another group of people who "owned" everything. 
**A: You say why? Because the goverment policies in place at the time shamelessly favored the development of the British minority in Lower Canada. It is a relevant example (although admitedly we need more such examples and ideally province-wide stats) because it illustrates the inequality between the two groups. Your assertion that this statement sounds like a common negative perception of the Jews during 1933-1945 is absolutely unfounded. The British in Canada were a colonizing force: they were using the power of their state and their laws to control the destiny of Lower and Upper Canada. They were in a situation of power (unlike the Jews in Europe who were stateless). 
*** The fact that Anglo-Quebecers were disproportionately represented in Lower Canada's elite over French Canadians is an undisputed matter of historical record. This didn't fundamentally change until the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s. Bearcat
*5) At the same time, many among the increasingly Anglophone business elite were pushing for a union of Upper and Lower Canada, a plan favoured by the British-appointed governor, George Ramsey, Earl of Dalhousie. 
**Q:Today, this is called lobbying and the business “elite” pays professionals millions of dollars a year to promote their interest with the government. 
**A: Some things have not changed...
*** Lobbying, pushing for, tomato, tomahto. Not POV, just difference in word choice. Bearcat
*6) However, Papineau continued to push for reform. He petitioned the British government to bring about reform, but in March of 1837 the government of Lord Russell rejected all of Papineau's requests.
**Q: What requests? -  And why were they rejected?
**A: The requests are in the 92 resolutions. In short, the Parti patriote demanded that Lower Canada get the same kind of political institutions that Great Britain had. The official reasons for their rejection are in the Russell's resolutions.
*** Could be made clearer. Again, though, more "not enough information" than POV, per se. Bearcat
Fact: Historical records show Paineau was mentally unstable: Quote a French history professor from the link herewith () to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online :  "The thinking of a man so unstable as Papineau, and a politician into the bargain, is not easy to describe."
*Not fact: Your assertion that your quote is 1) a historical record and 2) a proof that Papineau was mentally unstable is a logical fallacy. Please read Logical Fallacy and especially Appeal to authority. Historian Fernand Ouellette's contribution to Quebec historiography is important, but his opinion of Papineau is not the only one. Historian Robert Rumilly made a famous bio of him and more recently, Papineau's political thought was analyzed by Claude Corbo and Yvan Lamonde. Reading and understanding Papineau is a lot more difficult than just point out the fact that his opinions changed over time.
**Even if Papineau was mentally unstable (and JillandJack's quote only proves that some people believe he was), I don't see how it's relevant to the matter at hand. Bearcat 
*7) In November of 1837, Lord Gosford, governor of Lower Canada, ordered the arrest of 26 Patriote leaders. This marked the beginning of the armed rebellion as many leaders chose to resist arrest or try to escape by crossing the US border.
**Q: Why did he order their arrest?
**A: You want the real answer or the official reason of the government? The government ordered the arrest of all the Patriote leaders who organized the boycotts and the protests. The government wanted to avoid loosing the two Canadas the way they had lost the colonies of the south. They decided not to wait for the people to be ready for war this time.
*** Yet again, not NPOV, just "not enough information". Could be made more clear. Bearcat
*8) The rebellion of the Patriotes Canadiens of Lower Canada is often seen as the example of what could have happened to America if the American Revolutionary War had failed.
**Q:Really? How so? And, based on what facts does this get included in an Encyclopedia?
**A: Is it that difficult to see a parallel between a the American Revolutionary War and the Lower Canada Rebellion?
***Can a reference be provided? Bearcat
SEE:
http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39325&query=Papineau
JillandJack 20:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An "argument" on the talk page is the mechanism for discussing and resolving NPOV concerns. Wikipedia quite explicitly has a policy against people flagging an article for NPOV and then refusing to discuss their concerns on the talk page; an NPOV notice can be removed from the article if you refuse to discuss the matter. You also cannot pick and choose who you'll discuss it with; you must engage in constructive, civil discussion with all parties who express interest in the discussion whether they "perpetrated" the POV or not. Furthermore, repeated NPOV tagging without discussion is considered a form of vandalism. Bearcat 19:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, most of the items on the list above do not seem to be POV issues, and certainly not "deliberate distortions."  I would suggest: 1. This is not a POV issue.  If you want to add more information, please do so.  2. This statement is vague, not POV, and should be expanded or deleted.  3.  No contradiction.  Besides, contradictions do not in themselves constitute a POV.  4. If you doubt the stastistic, you should ask for a source, rather than comparing the author's contribution with anti-Semitism. 5. Call it "lobbying" if you want.  Call it "pushing for" something.  Neither choice of words violates the NPOV guidelines.  6. Again, if you want more information, add it.  Don't label the entire article as violating the NPOV guidelines.  7.  Ditto.  8. This is a silly bit of historical speculation that should just be deleted.  In summary, I think the POV tag is overkill.  There are problems with the article, but few of them are "deliberate distortions," a phrase that violates the Wikipedia guideline that say we should assume good faith on the part of our fellow contributors.  HistoryBA 00:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I'm giving this a B-class mark just to remain consistent with how it's already been assessed by the Canadian workgroup; it does, however, need a military conflict infobox. Looks kinda bare and empty to my eye without it. LordAmeth 08:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: I undid the revert commented with "Rv; no reason given for wholesale removal of relevant material." because in fact no relevant material was removed: it was simply moved:
* Bibliography of the 1837-1838 insurrections in Lower Canada
Consequently, I replaced the rather incomplete (and arguably partial) bibliography I had introduced in the article with a neutral list of all the main English-language works that exist on the subject. The rest can still be consulted in the bibliography page. I am happy that so many of the key documents are readable online. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: I am absolutely astounded by the amount of revisionism in this articles and those related to it. As discussed above in the talk page, the first armed conflict was an act of self-defense from unwarranted accusations. The entire first rebellion was nothing short of the English settlers attacking the French population after the colonial military leader baselessly accused the members of the legislative assembly of treason after the governor's resignation. There was no organized rebellion being prepared, there was no plan to expel the English, there was not even a thought about firing a weapon towards anyone from the "Patriotes" until they had to defend themselves from hysterical mobs and soldiers. It's in fact why Papineau was simply exiled instead of being executed: They never managed to prove he did anything wrong, and god knows they tried to find something.
The entire thing needs to be rewritten. There are plenty of historical sources explaining what happened, from both sides of the coin. This current version is nothing but a disgusting whitewash attempt. 142.83.68.58 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lower Canada Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033836/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/52/bonthius.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/52/bonthius.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified