Talk:Anti-Canadian sentiment/Archive 1

message: This article is just a copy-paste of the intro paragraph to Anti-Americanism.--Pharos 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Silliness

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Bite me. Canadian self-deprecating humour very very very often focuses on false American stereotypes of Canada (viz. the American who drives up to the border in July with skis on his roof).
Decent edits in general, though, Marskell ;)
--Gleemonex
:It was just bad syntax. Marskell 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tortured logic? 

message: Someone please delete this page. If you read the article, there are only three mentions of anti-Canadianism other than that of Americans: Volitare, Brazil and Quebec. That's not anti-Canadianism. That's an American perception of Canada.
*What's Canada Canada?  Anyway, the fact that an article needs to be expanded isn't typically grounds for deletion.  CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this page

message: Really. Are these even arguments? Have you even read the article yourself? Other than Volitare, Brazil and Bouchard, it reeks of utter anti-Canadianism by an America. I'm glad its a mangled train-wreck. In fact, I'm hoping this article/"stub" gets deleted in a couple of days. 
Oh by the way, I think you need to get that "Canadian" off your name, CanadianCaesar. Looks like you aren't really that Canadian after all, eh?
*By the way, I looked at the achives of the debate over whether this article should be deleted. The archives show that most of the people wanted to either merge this article with Canada or delete it all together.
**The article has significantly changed since the AfD debate.  Anyway, I don't think "it reeks of utter anti-Canadianism by an America." ("an America"?)  It does not endorse any views, but reports them, or at least it did until you deleted everything you didn't agree with. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are these even arguments?

message: Ok, in a nutshell, this debate is over whether or not the article should be deleted? Am I right, if I am not, please tell me. Eagle  talk 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify

message: Can somebody please tell me why we haven't deleted this page yet? The last time I checked wasn't this page founded on vandalism itself?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.46.241 (talk • contribs). NOTE:Matched contribs from history.Eagle talk 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my quote from Be Bold. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's my response. "If somebody writes an inferior article, it's okay to change it." Canadia 9:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Particularly for extrapolation and comments on supposed intent ("this is probably what Voltaire meant" etc.) Marskell 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article is flawed from the start. How now is it that anti-Canadianism is comprised of mainly anti-Canadian sentiment from American Conservatives? Unlike anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism isn't global; it's only a small, concentrated group of peoples that seem to dislike the policies of Canada. Canadia 10:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear-up

message: I don't think another AfD for this article is really going to change anything. I participate in AfD on a pretty regular basis and looking at the previous debate I can tell you that another debate would easily result in a 'keep' decision. I think it might even qualify for a speedy keep depending on who nominated it. At this point I think the article just needs more work. Start with specific sentences that are problematic, and see if you can work out a solution. --Hetar 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my quote from Be Bold. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's my response. "If somebody writes an inferior article, it's okay to change it." Canadia 9:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Particularly for extrapolation and comments on supposed intent ("this is probably what Voltaire meant" etc.) Marskell 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article is flawed from the start. How now is it that anti-Canadianism is comprised of mainly anti-Canadian sentiment from American Conservatives? Unlike anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism isn't global; it's only a small, concentrated group of peoples that seem to dislike the policies of Canada. Canadia 10:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Opinion

message: If you want to do an AFD (articles for deletion) you are going to be creating a page (the AFDwhich IP accounts can't so why don't you create an account and we'll talk about how to do an AFD once you are done.  Please stop revert warring in the meanwhile though.  Lots of the people on AFD are admins and they will take a dim view of you reverting back and fourth.  jbolden1517Talk 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do you delete a page again? Canadia, 10:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  70.27.46.241 

message: Looking at the debates and the previous AfD, I believe there is substantial support for the article. The issue is then if it is notable enough, which is provided by references. Hence, if such a phenomenon proves to exist, and that it fits the polciies of Wikipedia, it should then be allowed a place in it. An AfD without valid justification is just wasting the community's time and effort. I reccomend looking at the WP:SNOWBALL essay for why such a case would prove fruitless.
The proper cause of action is to improve the article with NPOV statements that will lend credit to all parties involved. Otherwise, the vandals will inevitably face a ban or AfC, both of which are very unpleasant scenarios.
I reiterate that the premise for everyone is to be involved and work cooperatively despite divergences in opinion, towards a common goal of improvement. 
-- Evanx(tag?) 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Evanx 

message: Ok, it looks like improvement to the article needs to start with getting good references. To encourage that references are added, I will treat any removal of references from the article as vandalism and will deal with it accordingly. If references are bad bring the issue to the talk page. If someone puts a reference you don't like, counter it by Adding a new reference. Eagle talk 19:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, this is the problem.  You think the statements have to be true.  They don't.  What has to be true is that these things were stated.  This isn't an essay designed to show Canada sucks.  This is an article designed to show what anti-Canadianism looks like.  What's "incredible" (not incredible in a good way, but incredible meaning astounding) is that you can't grasp that this "site" (it's actually an article- Wikipedia is a website) isn't doomed for deletion just because the first version was weird.  See Xenu for a featured article that started out as a weird copy and paste.  The article doesn't belong to the creator and we don't have to justify the creation- the article has been changed and I justify its existence because I feel anti-Canadianism is notable- a real discussion involving important albeit stupid people, referenced in fiction such as Blame Canada.  Finally, as for me not being an adminstrator because you don't think I'm one, well, I am an administrator, I can delete pages (and have deleted hundreds of them), and I can protect pages.  And yes this is a waste of my time.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I never implied or said the statements had to be true. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that for the statements to be true, they need to be corroborated by a verifiable source. I also like your second point where you say that this article isn't designed as a Canada sucks page. Well, not exactly. How can people get the impression that Canada doesn't suck when people read statements like, "Canada is unsalvageable" and "If Canada were to break into pieces, America would pick up the parts." I understand that the main purpose is to show what anti-Canadianism looks like and, in the process, is supposed to show the truth about Canada. The problem is that people don't exactly see that message and therefore have a negative and, more importantly, distorted view of Canada. I fail to see how the comments of three American Conservative commentators and one French philosopher (who, by the way, wasn't even referring to Canada, as "Canada" was only comprised of New France and Acadia at the time) reflect true anti-Canadianism. Even you feel that albiet ant-Canadiasm is "notable," not everybody feels the same way as you (and I justify this statement on the grounds that everybody in Wikipedia is entitled to their own opinion) and most of the people you are debating with are "idiots," (such as the person who referenced the fiction "Blame Canada"), so these "people" lose their credibility when they tread on the subject of anti-Canadianism. If you really want to end this useless and puerile argument, then delete this page. Again, it's an absolute waste of my time. Canadia 9:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone reading this cannot help but feel that Canada sucks, then that person has some really serious issues regarding independent thinking.  The fact is, Wikipedia has many articles that go over criticisms things receive- but people reading over this stuff do not have to believe everything they read.  I've always had some fear that the age of independent thinking is coming to a close, and if you're going to argue that information should now be destroyed because there's a real fear that the masses will believe that stuff is frightening.  And really, you say it doesn't reflect real anti-Canadian.  Then please, by all means add real anti-Canadian discussion to the article.  Your final statement, "If you really want to end this useless and puerile argument, then delete this page," says that you are unwilling to compromise and must absolutely have your way. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how anybody who reads this article would not get a warped and distorted view of Canada. Have you read the article yourself? According to the article, Canada is a "few acres of snow" that is "culturally marxist," "unsalvageable" and "not a real country." How can anybody not be swayed by this crap? As I have strenuously and vociferously maintaned, most of the stereotypes of Canada are utter biases. (See above) I'm not trying to dampen the independent thinking that Wikipedia subscribes to. I know that Wikipedia is a diaphanous source of information where articles can be presented in the way that people believe it should. If you think that the creation of the an "anti-Canadian" page is an example of  "independent thinking," then for it. But you need to understand that for every viewpoint, there is a counterbalance viewpoint. Just because you believe that this article warrants a creation doesn't give you legitimate grounds to change and edit what you feel is felicitious. (Same goes for me) My proposal is this: lock the article down tentatively and get some constructive dialogue going. As far as I'm concerned, this arguing is a waste of my time and is tempered by my going to revert the article back to what I think is the right revision. Canadia 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the article say Canada is "unsalvageable" and "not a real country"?  Again, it says that people have said these things.  Of course these are biases.  That's what the article is about.  And yes, I have read the article.  I'm not swayed by it because I know these are just other people's opinions.  It doesn't give any view of Canada, it gives a view of anti-Canadianism.  It's offensive by nature, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it.  It's always about what you think is the right revision. You, you, you.  If you want balance try adding to the article instead of deleting things mercilessly.  How can anyone feel bold enough to expand and reference it when you're destroying it every day?  Something there now won't be there tomorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again, we see the utter inanity and biasness that permeates your argument. Who are you to tell me not to delete things mercilessly? Aren't you doing EXACTLY the same thing? Again, pot calling the kettle black. You can't accuse me of doing something you yourself is commensurately guilty of. "Where does the article say Canada is "unsalvageable?" Right under "Views from the right" when somebody gratuitously put Conrad Black and David Frum as "believing Canada is unsavlageable." Even as you admit, these are biases. And as we know, biases have absolutely no place in Wikipedia because it's a source of information that is supposed to present information neutrally and fairly. Your argument to tell me to try to "balance the article by adding to it" is also ridiculous. Since when did you get this idea that I agreed with any of the original stuff that was put on the article? You say that I always change the article to what I think "is the right revision," yet you try to ask me to add to the article that reflects your opinion. Go figure. Canadia 8:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion isn't reflected here, as I've made abundantly clear when I called these people idiots.  The fact is, if Wikipedia is not comprehensive enough to reflect all sides of an argument, even the ugly sides, then that is not NPOV.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: Can someone please lock the article down for a specific period of time please? It would be greatly appreciated. Canadia 8:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock the article

message: Having watched this intermittently, I must say with CC's recent addition of sources I think it would be hard to accept continual reverts to the shorter version preferred by Canadia (editing as anon). I think the page as it stands now should be the one we move forward with. Marskell 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't noticed, CC's version is full of questionable information and biases. Even if his version was "correct" it would be full of biases and stereotypes. Canadia 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His version is now sourced. We need to trim a bit of ORish wording but otherwise it's fine. Marskell 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright his version is sourced. However, I do think that certain parts do need to be trimmed down. Canadia 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current version