Talk:Vive le Québec libre/Archive 1

Wikisource

I've copyed this speech to Wikisource [1] but I see no reason to remove it from the article. LukeSurl 16:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do see a reason. This is an encyclopedia: the article should be about why, when, where and what did de Gaulle said and what impact it had on the Quebec sovereignty movement, to the French foreign policy etc., etc. There is no reason to include the the speech itself – it is the purpose of Wikisource to supply such information. (Imagine how annoying would it be if we included the complete text of Bible or Qur'an in its article).

Therefore, I removed the original speech from the article and added a link to the appropriate Wikisource entry. Reader really interested in the text will surely spare one more click and reader that is not souch interested won't be bothered. -- Sandius 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

!

I don't! see why it's! necessary to use nothing! but! exclamation marks! throughout the! speech!!! Lee M 16:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)!

Well, if you listen to the speech, you'll see that he's pretty excited (quite an interesting speech to listen to also, I must say. The crowd just loves it, and he's very passionate. -- Zantastik talk 05:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

persona non grata?

I was told that after the speech Charles De Gaule was not only told to leave Canada but was not welcome to return. I forget the latin term that was used but can someone verify this for me? If that is true I think it is quite significant to add to the page.

persona non grata? 85.124.44.37 18:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

French Commonwealth

I've read a book where the author -- was it Mordecai Richler? -- suggested that what DeGaulle really meant was a setup similar to the relationship between Canada and Britain: A Republic of Quebec as the crown jewel in a French Commonwealth. He died in 1970, and as far as I know he never spoke publicly about the subject afterward, so we'll probably never know. -- Pacholeknbnj, 4:40 PM EST, 25 February 2006

What I am wondering is: has there ever been any reflection on the fact that this was the president of a former colonial power that had just killed hundreds of thousands of Algerians in a barbarian colonial war, who had come to promise "liberation" to French Canadians?

Pauline Vanier

Pauline Vanier's "1940" note is apocryphal. If she did write it, it was not on the balcony in Montreal (the previous edit had her giving it to him on two separate occasions). I have removed the second reference and modified the first. Scolaire 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

I've made some changes to this article since it has vastly more federalist-POV content than the french article, which is much more brief. It seems that the articles in both languages used to be the same, but federalist opinions were added over time to this one. Make more changes if you want, but I don't think it's fair to reflect in the text 90% of the federalist reaction and only a few sentences about the reaction in quebec, considering this speech did take place in french in quebec.. Oh it's not fair to write "English Canadians"=federalist, for example Trudeau was French canadian. Dan Carkner 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

About the 1979 quote, you were right to remove the date, I just took it from the French wiki article.Dan Carkner 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, it was said in '68, I put a citation.[2] Dan Carkner 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arrival in Canada

"He didn't land at the airport in Montreal because it was too jumbled to make an impressive arrival" .. who ever placed this - could you please eleborate on what you mean by "jumbled" - I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Thanks - Themepark

Capitalisation

In Background, "the Lester Pearson Government" has been changed to "the Lester Pearson government", but all other 'Governments' have been left capitalised. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this, and if so can it be applied consistently? Scolaire 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe if it refers to the Government of Canada, then it's capitalized, but if it's just "such-and-such's government" then it's not? This isn't wikipedia policy I'm talking about, I'm just remembering something my mother told me, she was a technical writer for the federal gov't.Dan Carkner 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's good enough for your mother, it's good enough for me, Dan. Scolaire 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category

Category:Heads of state speeches is really for addresses to the nation by the head of state such as the State of the Union Address or the Speech from the Throne. This speech was a particular (and particularly controversial) speech made in Quebec by the French head of state, so I think it really belongs in the more general category, along with Read my lips: no new taxes and such-like. Scolaire 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? De Gaulle spoke as President of France, after all, not as Joe Shmoe, so I figured it would qualify for Category:Heads of state speeches. Are you sure the cat is only for State-of-the-Union type of addresses? Note that there is no clear rule on the cat page what gets included there or not -- my interpretation was that any significant speech by a head of state would qualify. Just because the speech itself was controversial (and, yes, I watched the clips -- it sure as hell was controversial, but also rather amazing, and amazingly delivered -- never saw something like that either before or after!) I don't think this should, by itself, disqualify a speech such as this from belonging to this category. What says you? Turgidson 23:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling - and this is nothing to do with rules - is that the Speeches category is small enough that all noteworthy, famous or infamous speeches should be kept together on the one page, where anybody looking at the category will say (as I did) "oh yeah! Do you remember that one?". For instance, the Checkers speech is in speeches (Nixon was not head of state) while Richard Nixon's resignation speech is in Heads of state speeches (he was head of state, just about). I would much prefer that these two were kept together in the same category. Splitting speeches that are essentially of one kind into different categories only on the basis of what job the speech-maker was employed in at the time just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Also, although de Gaulle was visiting Québec as President of France, the speech was impromptu and very personal. I very much doubt it was approved by the Assemblée nationale in advance! Another reason why I'm not inclined to put it in Heads of state speeches.

Scolaire 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The first point is not too convincing to me personally, though I can see the rationale. The second point is more convincing: I agree, though de Gaulle made the Vive le Québec libre speech while Head of State, it's almost 100% sure that he did that without consulting or notifying anyone else in the French Government in advance. So, if you put it that way, I agree. But keep in mind what's said in the article: "This statement, coming from the French head of state, was considered a serious breach of diplomatic protocol", which is also correct: whether he cleared the speech or not with the Assemblée nationale' or anyone else, he still spoke in his capacity as President of France (and so, as Head of State). So, I will not pursue this further as regards the category (you made a reasonable case for the status quo, and I accept it, be it a bit grudgingly), but maybe one could expand a bit more in the text of the article on this point, which is rather unusual in the annals of speeches given by heads of state, to say the least. Turgidson 14:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironic event at the balcony speech

I recall once hearing that Mayor Jean Drapeau was prescient to De Gaulle's forthcoming speech shortly before he made it, and ordered that the sound system on the balcony be disabled. If I can recall correctly, after the sound system was disabled an electrician took it upon himself to repair the disruption, thereby allowing De Gaulle to go ahead with his speech. Can anyone confirm the details? 206.47.191.132 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Zoomeri

Image copyright problem with Image:General Charles de Gaulle at Expo 67 e000996503.jpg

The image Image:General Charles de Gaulle at Expo 67 e000996503.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemin du Roy?

The article notes that deGaulle was driven up the Chemin du Roy on his way to City Hall

I don't know what the street layout was in Montreal forty years ago, but I can say now: -there is no Chemin du Roy in the city -there is a Rue Roy, but it's nowhere near the City Hall. It's a little street that runs East-West just north of Avenue des Pins (different part of the city)

Does anyone know why the line about Roy is included in this article?

Oh, and on the topic, clicking "Chemin du Roy" takes users to a page on Quebec Autoroute 138, which also does not follow Rue Roy at any point. I have no idea why this is, except possibly a confusion between "Roi" and "Roy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.28.72 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Key points from the Quebec Route 138 article:

• "Part of this highway is known as the Chemin du Roi" (presumably "Roy" is an alternative spelling since "Chemin du Roy" is a redirect to this article).
• "This highway takes a more scenic route than the more direct Autoroute 40 between Montreal and Quebec City."
• "In Montreal, Highway 138 runs via Sherbrooke Street..."

I would take this to mean that De Gaulle took the "scenic" Chemin du Roy from Québec City to Montreal, arriving at the Hôtel de Ville via Sherbrooke Street. Reasonable? Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Vive le Québec libre speech → Vive le Québec libre — The combination of French and English does not read well. Is there any other possible understanding of "Vive le Québec libre" in an English encyclopaedia than as a reference to de Gaulle's speech? It is already a redirect. — Srnec (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Definitely an improvement. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This just occurred to me: do you have any opinion on including the exclamation mark? And if so, whether French style or English? Srnec (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure I care a lot... But I can't think of a good reason to include it, so I'd leave it out. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excluding the exclamation mark to avoid a war about the space before the exclamation mark. Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec! ^talk 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • D'accord sur le sujet du point d'exclamation. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: similar article titles do do include the word "speech" - see Category:Speeches. Exclamation mark not necessary. Scolaire (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translation of "la chose française au Canada."

"Cause" may not be a correct translation of "chose." Translating someone's comments is not about finding "correct" translations for specific words, but about presenting the reader who is unfamiliar with the language in which the text was couched with the best version of what the original speaker was trying to say. It is about rendering ideas, not words. As we are not privy to the thoughts of the speaker, we have only his French version and the context, and it seems to me that "the French cause" satisfactorily renders "la chose française" in this context. "The French being in Canada" makes no sense to me, and could be interpreted in a number of ways, depending whether one is American or British. I assume Wikipedia would aim to be understood equally well throughout the Anglophone world. Maybe someone could come up with something better than "cause," but let us be clear that the use of "chose" was semi-colloquial, and demands a certain latitude in translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.97.146 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The previous comment is unsigned and it would be much appreciated if the author would kindly identify himself. Marktunstill (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or we could ask ourselves whether he or she has a point! "Mr Trudeau, who is the foe of the French being in Canada" makes no sense, as the author says. A nonsensical sentence has no place in an encyclopaedia, so we should either remove it altogether, or try to agree in what sense "la chose française au Canada" was meant. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Before editing this article I did go to the trouble of consulting two professional translators (English/French) about the translation I was proposing and they agreed with me that "being" is the appropriate translation for "chose" in this case. None of us had any problem understanding de Gaulle's meaning either in French or in the English translation. However as the meaning has become an issue and on consulting my Oxford Pocket American Dictionary of Current English, OUP, 2002, New York, I see that the noun "being" means "(1) existence" and "(4) anything which exists or is imagined". If there is still dissatisfaction about this, I would recommend that we try to find a translation in some other published work such as a biography in English of de Gaulle or of Trudeau or a history in English of France, Montreal or Canada. Kindly let me have your further thoughts. Marktunstill (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have further thoughts. I just want to know what you think General de Gaulle was saying. That Mr. Trudeau was opposed to French existence in Canada? That he did not want French imagined in Canada? To me the sentence in English make no sense. As a reader I would really like to know what it means. Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the originator of this section. Apologies for my unfamiliarity with protocol. It may be useful to reflect that these comments of De Gaulle which are under discussion were just handwritten marginal notes which he added to a dispatch he had received from the French embassy in Canada. This was after Lester Pearson had retired, and Pierre Trudeau had succeeded him as leader of the Liberal Party in April 1968. The embassy, anxious to ameliorate the bad diplomatic atmosphere created by the "Québec libre" speech, wrote to see if a meeting could be arranged between De Gaulle and Trudeau. De Gaulle's comments were the answer. They appear in the form we are discussing here in the book "Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy" by J.L. Granatstein and Robert Bothwell, but it is perhaps not beyond the bounds of possibility that what he actually wrote was "la cause française au Canada." I have no idea how clear his handwriting was. If he did indeed write "chose," it may have been because "le mot juste" escaped him at that moment, so he wrote the French for "thing," unaware that future generations would puzzle over his words.82.20.1.54 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article linked to from reference 6, De Gaulle s'était adressé aux Québécois dès 1940, I read that de Gaulle had used "la chose française" as early as 1 August 1940: «personne au monde ne peut comprendre la chose française mieux que les Canadiens-français». It's probably safe to say, then, that what he wrote was what he meant to write. Interesting, though, that in the book you cite, the author doesn't even try to translate the note, as its "flavour is best conveyed in the original French." That's why I think we shouldn't be too clever about interpreting it where we don't have a reliable source. The text in the article before 30 November, "We have no concessions to make, nor even any friendliness towards Mr. Trudeau, who is the adversary of French matters in Canada", is closer to a literal translation and far clearer in meaning, and should be restored until an alternative can be found in the published literature. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly get my vote.82.27.224.132 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an effort to clarify by translation into English some comments which may not in French have been altogether clear at the outset. I still do not consider that "matters" is adequate, not least as the original "chose" is singular. The outcome of this discussion may be simply to translate "chose" as "thing". However, some care needs to be taken with the rest of what de Gaulle wrote: "concession" in the French singular should not become plural in English; "amabilité" does not mean friendliness but courtesy or politeness; "à faire à M. Trudeau" does not translate as "towards Mr. Trudeau" which means "envers M. Trudeau" in French. If we are now all agreed, I propose changing "being" to "thing" and leaving the current translation otherwise intact. Marktunstill (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"If we are now all agreed" is a bit of a leap, especially considering two out of three of us had agreed to go back to the original! For a start, the word "foe" is archaic, and has very limited use in modern English. "Mr. X is the foe of y" is not one of those uses. "Enemy", "opponent" or the original "adversary" would be acceptable, but "foe" just looks silly. Secondly, amabilité does not mean "courtesy" or "politeness" but "kindness" or "goodness". It may be that "courtesy" is the best translation in this instance, but let's at least keep the record straight. Thirdly, one may "afford" courtesy but one doesn't "afford" concessions. Since we can't now use "make" is there any reason not to simply say "give"? Finally, and to get back to the original point, "the French thing" is exactly as meaningless as "the French being". If you are going to translate something into English, ideally the end result should be in English. Failing that, I suppose we might put the word "thing" in scare quotes. I wouldn't consider that ideal, but if it digs us out of a hole I would be willing to go with it. My proposed text, then, is: "We have not one concession, nor even any courtesy, to give to Mr Trudeau, who is the enemy of the French 'thing' in Canada."

I am restoring the original text for the moment. It can be changed again once we have agreement. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can do better than "thing." Compare such expressions as "gardien de la chose" and "la chose publique" ("legal guardian" and "the public interest," respectively). Here, "chose" clearly means "welfare," suggesting not only "interests" or "affairs," but carrying the suggestion that those interests or affairs should go well. I'm fairly sure that De Gaulle meant "chose" in that sense, but how best to reproduce the idea in English? May we not permit ourselves to paraphrase rather than translate, if it makes things clearer? Something like "the rights (or welfare, or advancement) of French-Canadians?" Beyond that, I think "not a single concession" is not only more accurate, but better describes De Gaulle's intransigence vis-à-vis M. Trudeau, and either "enemy" or "adversary" would do (I agree foe is archaic, although archaic expressions sometimes carry a rhetorical punch absent from their modern counterparts), but I would lean towards enemy as better representing hostility - adversaries can be civil, and even amiable. Pavel (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to hear what Marktunstill understands by "chose". Some other possibilities that have occurred to me, that would be suitably dramatic if somewhat wordy, are:

• The enemy of the whole of French existence in Canada
• The enemy of the idea of Frenchness in Canada
• The enemy of all things French in Canada
• The enemy of everything French in Canada

Does any of those come close? Scolaire (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

“Une vraie chienlit,” to use one of de Gaulle’s preferred but rather archaic expressions. The original translation is not good enough to stand so I have changed it. As to meaning, previously in this discussion I referred to the menace involved with the expression “chose” in de Gaulle’s words. It is as if he is referring to an entity already within Canada - but French - which Canada as a nation may have difficulty containing. The threat is veiled but it is there and it refers mainly to something which was already in Canada and not principally something to come out of France. The elusiveness was almost certainly intended: what he is saying is that Trudeau is the enemy of Quebec, “la chose française au Canada”, and that de Gaulle resents that. Quebec is the “chose” or the “being” referred to. His comments are also restrained: for instance he does not say plainly that he considers Trudeau to be a traitor to his native province.Marktunstill (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"The enemy of the French being" is not English. End of story. When you can give us something that is English, we can change it. Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm awfully sorry but it is English even if a person does not understand it. If you can come up with something better, we'll consider it! Marktunstill (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely, to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article, a translation must not only be in English, but as free from ambiguity as it is possible to make it? Some readers will not have the advantage of being able to look at the original and make their own minds up. They will be entirely dependent on the translation. My objection to "the French being in Canada" remains its ambiguity. A being can be an entity, as "the Supreme Being," or being can be the present participle of the verb "to be." I looked at that linked article in French about De Gaulle using the expression "la chose française" in 1940. What he said was that nobody in the world understands "la chose française" better than the French Canadians. I infer from that that he considered "la chose française" to be something not exclusively to do with French Canada, but having a broader meaning. Precisely what that meaning was, I would not pretend to know. Maybe it was some sort of concept of national pride or patriotism, like the bond which exists between, say, Ireland and her diaspora. I agree that, when time permits, those of us with access to a decent library should try to come up with an authoritative interpretation of what De Gaulle was getting at. In the meantime, though, we should try to leave it in such a way that as many people as possible will understand it, as well as it may be understood at the moment. I am far from convinced that "the French being" satisfies that criterion. Pavel (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, "Mr. Trudeau is the enemy of the French being in Canada" is English. Its meaning is clear: Mr. Trudeau does not want the French to be in Canada (i.e. the people of France, Europe - not the francophile Canadians). Read it again and see if I'm not right. Alternatively, it might conceivably mean that he is the enemy of a particular human being who is in Canada at this moment (not de Gaulle because he was in France at that moment). So it is English but it absolutely does not mean what de Gaulle meant. The French for "being" is être, and être and chose are two completely different words, so even by your own criteria the word is wrong. And "If you can come up with something better, we'll consider it"? Who is this we? There is a clear consensus that the word "being" is wrong. Editing against consensus is disruptive. You have been offered, by my count, nine alternatives, and most of them you have not even bothered to discuss. If you edit against consensus you will be reverted. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Having said all that, I will offer you another alternative: how about "entity", one of your own words? The word could be used to describe Québec itself. It is sufficiently close to "thing" and also contains a sense of "being". What do you think? And try to be constructive rather than abusive this time. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the post of 08:17, 18 Jan 09 there seems to be some confusion betweeen the noun "being" and the present participle spelt the same way. In any event, I have replaced "being" with "entity" and trust that this is found to be a suitable compromise; the original translation, however, cannot stand as it is inadequate. Marktunstill (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The confusion was deliberate - it was to illustrate what Pavel and I have been saying all along: that your edit was confusing. And it was never intended that the original translation should stand, only that it should not be changed until we had a readable alternative. I'm glad you find my compromise suitable. Scolaire (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The obfuscation, such as it was, was deliberate in what de Gaulle wrote and that is why "being" is the most appropriate translation. However, if folk don't want to go along who am I to insist?Marktunstill (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest "the French fact in Canada". Awien (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(adds) For example: [3] [4] [5] and so on. Awien (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Under the pretext of....

The use of this phrase implies that De Gaulle was simply using his visit to the Expo to make a political statement about Quebec - and that has to be nonsense. Whoever wrote this evidently thinks that 'under the pretext of' means 'on the occasion of'. It doesn't. A pretext is always pejorative - a subterfuge or an excuse.213.127.210.95 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Vive le Québec libre. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Second+Draft+Gaulle+Montreal+speeches+study+contrast/6930795/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/language-culture/language-culture-general/vive-le-quebec-libre.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2007/07/24/qc-vivelequebeclibrea.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/de-gaulle-and-vive-le-quebec-libre-feature/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.vigile.net/ds-degaulle/docs/chartier-1940.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040808004506/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=128 to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=128&var_recherche=Qu%E9bec

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)