| Revision as of 23:11, 11 March 2009 editPhilbox17 (talk | contribs)168 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:14, 11 March 2009 edit undoPhilbox17 (talk | contribs)168 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| == Major Role == | == Major Role == | ||
| Vfp15 who do you work for? The Federal or your just a federalist |
Vfp15 who do you work for? The Federal or your just a federalist propaganda machine? ] | ||
| The RRQ played a major role I am tired of federalists that try to hide information, thats what it's write in the reference.....] | The RRQ played a major role I am tired of federalists that try to hide information, thats what it's write in the reference.....] | ||
Revision as of 23:14, 11 March 2009
Complaints
Sorry ... this article is to rebuild...
RRQ is against violence and can't realy be right or left... .
RRQ is just pro-independance...
Threats of violence, RRQ, or public outcry
Agreed, it was propaguanda, I remove it - Philbox17
I correct the page, Sinneed correction also look okay - Philbox17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbox17 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, it has been so many years since I spoke French regularly, the web site was tough going! ... "propaganda". I hope I helped.sinneed (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it is not propaganda. RRQ claims to have played a major role in the decision to cancel the reenactment, while the authorities in charge claim the decision was made due to threats of violence. So either mention the RRQ's claim and the counterclaim, or don't mention the role of the RRQ at all. Note that this is being discussed on the French version of the article. Vincent (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- "The Economist" is not the RRQ. The article does not say that it was canceled due to threats of violence. If I have missed it, please give a quote. The addition you are repeatedly inserting needs a source.sinneed (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- In the article "When it reached a point where its organisers were receiving threats—including having “our bayonets shoved up our butts”, according to their leader—the National Battlefields Commission, which administers the Plains of Abraham, cancelled the mock battle and other activities planned for the summer." - It does not say they canceled due to the threats, but to the outcry. In order to say they canceled due to the threats, much less that the government said it, we would need a source that says so.sinneed (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- 1) "WP is not a horse trade or a prisoner exchange. Source the addition you want to make" I agree. I am not saying I'll let you keep yours if you let me keep mine, I am saying that claim A needs to be balanced by claim B. This is because while Mr. X claims A was the decisive factor, Mr. Y (who made the actual decision) claims B was the decisive factor. Without Mr. Y's counterclaim, the article leaves the false impression that A is the factual decisive factor.
- 2) It WAS sourced but Philbox17 insists on removing the threats claim anyway. Vincent (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You might consider adding the balance(with source), rather than just hacking away. Looking back through the history, I can't see the edit that added a source, but that effort is hampered by the consistent lack of edit summaries. I am again restoring the sourced statement with shorter and less direct wording.sinneed (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Tu essais de laisser entendre substilement que le RRQ est responsable des menaces, c'est de la propagande! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbox17 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In English on en.wikipedia, in French on fr.wikipedia, but if you insist on French, at least get it right. And no personal attacks please: you are accusing me of propaganda, when I simply disagree with your position on what an article should contain. Vincent (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks please? I didn't do personnal attack and I speak the language I want! Phil
"At least get it right", I get it right, you are arrogant, a federalist, no other word needed... Phil
Militant
This means that it uses violence... militant. Are you sure this is the meaning you want?sinneed (talk)
- I see, it can refer to violent argument without physical violence.sinneed (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: Create the new wording here, with source.
At this point I am going to let the 2 of you squabble between yourselves. All the best.sinneed (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Major Role
Vfp15 who do you work for? The Federal or your just a federalist propaganda machine? Phil
The RRQ played a major role I am tired of federalists that try to hide information, thats what it's write in the reference.....Phil
The RRQ, a group of sovereigntist hardliners demanded the re-enactment’s cancellation. For several weeks debate raged.
For several weeks debate raged! We played a major role! We had been seen on all news channel in Québec! Phil
"The Economist" is not the RRQ, I am! I am a source if you continue I will just create a page on the RRQ website write the exact same thing and put it in the reference. Phil