Talk:Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Blocking entrance to the Black Watch Armoury

It should be noted that although militants blocked the royal couple from entering the Black Watch armouries, this was a temporary measure and the protesters were removed by police, thus allowing the event to go forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.201.54 (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Complaints

Sorry ... this article is to rebuild...

RRQ is against violence and can't realy be right or left... .

RRQ is just pro-independance...

RRQ is not a politic party.

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

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

You corrected your mistake of "Propaguande" to "Propagande", but "substile" should be "subtile".

While it's factual that I am a federaliste, it is insulting that you call me arrogant, and it is a personal attack. The second one. My point stands: it's polite to speak the local language. French on French wiki, but English on English wiki. Vincent (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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! the RRQ played a major role! They had been seen on all news channel in Québec! Phil

Complaint against Philbox17

1) Philbox17 has made personal attacks on me.

Here, Philbox17 accuses me of making propaganda.

And here he calls me a propaganda machine.

2) Philbox17 is editing an article about an organization after being asked to do so by leaders of this organization. There is a rule against a person editing their own article. What is the consensus on organizations doing so?

3) Philbox17 has called me "peureux" (a coward) on French wiki and has also taken to threatening me in a veiled manner: "I counsel you to stop the vandalism and the federalist propaganda right away Vincent...". (My translation.)

Would an admin kindly look into these matters, please? Vincent (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I reverted his recent edits and added some tags to the article. If he is a member of the RRQ, isn't editing the article considered a conflict of interest? I also found a reference that claims that the RRQ were threatening violence (which was a problem with the link from The Economist – no direct implication). MTLskyline (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

II counsel you to stop the vandalism and the federalist propaganda right away Vincent or I tell a admin, this is not threat! You are a coward because I have been block by your federalist admin friend, the conflict of interest is that admin are not neutral. The conflict is that you vincent are a federalist and against independance and it clearly show when you write on this article. Now stop propaguada and vandalism please, of course you see that as a threat... Philbox17 —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

By all means, please do tell an admin. Vincent (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Threats and intimidation

I have been block on Fr.wiki for threats and intimidation, because I ask you to stop making vandalism! because I ask you something! Same thing happen with the RRQ and the media, we can't say anything without being falsely accuse of threats. Admin are not neutral they are fedralist and they block users when we ask to stop making vandalism. Philbox17

RRQ

Now that I understand how wikipedia work I will source and correct evrything I can on this page. Don't erase what I source and please dont do vandalism. Vincent ask your federalist admin friend to unblock me on the French version if you really want to be cooperative. I understand if I ask you to stop vandalism I will be block...Philbox17 —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Vincent Federalist Vandalism

Hi,

All my posts are remove by Vincent, he always erase what I write, always! Even when it's source. I write the exact same thing as in the reference and I also put a link to the Journal de Québec proving many RRQ members were manifesting at Québec 400th anniversary and he erase it! Philbox17 (talk)

In January 2008, the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois launched a campaign against Québec City’s 400th anniversary celebrations and accused the organizers of being revisionists. Here is the source http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080101-094532.html Philbox17 (talk)

A spokesperson for the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois, notable Quebec filmaker Pierre Falardeau had warned that, "some people will get their asses kicked" if the re-enactment took place. The RRQ had promised visiting re-enactment spectators "a trip they won't soon forget". The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= . Here is the other link, evrything I write is the exact same thing as in the reference. It's not write that the RRQ make threat, it's write that Falardeau and the RRQ warned, Vincent dont seem to be neutral he erase evrything I write. Philbox17 (talk)

The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec, this is what the source said, the Gazette, read the source please. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

1rr

Due to edit warring, P and V are limited to 1RR on this page for "a while", once their blocks expire that is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Perhaps this article should be merged with the Le Québécois article since both articles are very small and are related. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight POV Problem

The article's quotes don't have any about commentary on the organization and are only quotes from organization members or spokespeople. Quotes from opposing parties (if any exist) should be sought out. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion re violence

I came here from a request in Wikipedia:Third opinion to resolve a "Disagreement concerning whether or not the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois can be considered an organization that advocates violence". I had never heard of the RRQ before just now, but I did find several reliable sources on the RRQ that talk about its "threats of violence"[1], "inappropriate comments with seemingly violent undertones"[2]. I also read the RRQ's defense of its actions[3] and it seems that, under their interpretation, they were warning that violent actions could happen but did not directly advocate violence. My own feeling is that certainly the issue about the threats or comments about violence should be mentioned, as they are notable; the mainstream opinion is that the comments were threatening, and this should be emphasized as per WP:WEIGHT; and that the minority opinion of the RRQ can be given that they did not advocate violence, but merely predicted it. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Philbox17

It seems that Philbox17 is practicing article ownership and deleting other editors contributions and replacing them with their own. I note that their user talk page confirms that assertion. It would not surprise me that this editor belongs to Réseau de Résistance du Québécois and does not have a neutral point of view. Thank you 76.64.152.111 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No friend, I only erase because you have no source. You sould create a account. I have not erase evrything you write.Philbox17

French citations

Hi, I removed two citations to French articles/webpages. This is an English encyclopedia, we should use English citations where ever possible. This organization is located in Canada, so there are plenty of English articles/webpages about them to cite. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

French citations are legal, French Wikipedia is full of English reference.Philbox17

Yes, removing citations simply because they are French violates policy. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against 76.64.152.111

His source are wrong he is practicing article ownership and deleting other editors contributions. Also he always write RQQ, it is RRQ. This user don't contribute to Wikipedia credibility and he is anonymus. If he want to talk about Patrick Bourgeois he need to put it on his article, not the RRQ. What Patrick write in 2006 was before the RRQ creation. I also like to point that the personnal opinion of journalist cannot be write on a neutral article, you must report the fact not what the journalist think of the fact.Philbox17 —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

It's hard to discuss the changes because they are so extensive -- since they are controversial it would be better to evaluate them one bit at a time. There is no need for the editor to create an account if he doesn't want to, but there is a need to justify the changes he wants to make. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Alert Philbox17 and User:Patriote17

It is obvious that there is one sockpuppet master using both accounts Philbox17 and Patriote17 to edit the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. Both editors have similar names and they are editing the same articles on the same day. Their edit history reflects they are editing the same articles. These accounts should be blocked the IP address blocked to stop the creation of other sockpuppets. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The accounts Philbox17 and Patriote17 have been blocked as sockpuppets of one user. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Philbox17 and Patriote17 Still Editing Article

Hi, please note that Philbox17 and User:Patriote17 are still editing the article using IP addresses: 70.80.168.92 and 70.51.192.17. Both of these accounts belong to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) called, Le Groupe Videotron Ltee. I would suggest just reverting any edits by users with IP addresses starting with "70". In addition, I would suggest watching for any editors that have new accounts. I believe this editor belongs to RRQ and will continue to use Wikipedia to promote the RRQ, with a tainted slant i.e. without a NPOV. This editor has been editing this article for a long time and he won't let a block stop him. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have watched the user 76.64.152.111 and the only thing he do is erase what the other users writed on the RRQ page. He propose to block all users of Le Groupe Videotron Ltee. This is the most used Internet Service Provider in Québec. His IP address should be block . He clearly want to control this page. Please note that it is RRQ not RQQ if 76.64.152.111 want to edit this page he must cooperate with others and at least know the name of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois.Québécois101

Sockpuppet is back

User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block these one's too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Hyraelle

User:Hyraelle has admitted being a member of the RRQ Diff. Therefore, User:Hyraelle lacks a NPOV. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against 76.64.152.111

This page need to be checked, the user 76.64.152.111 want to control it. Everything write on this page have been written by 76.64.152.111 and he erase all other contribution even when it is sourced. He made more then 15 changes in one hours. He erase all the French references only because they were in French. He also accuse everybody of being Sockpuppet. This page look like the personal blog of Don MacPherson. Almost all the sources are from Don MacPherson and MacPherson is clearly anti-RRQ, he don't hide about it. So I will make modification and I ask a admin to make sure 76.64.152.111 dont erase it.User:Québécois1837

Modification

First I will erase that part...

"On September 16, 2006, Patrick Bourgeois, the leader of the RRQ denounced Jan Wong's article, which controversially linked all three Quebec school shootings of the last two decades—1989 École Polytechnique Massacre (15 deaths), 1992 Concordia University Massacre (four deaths), and 2006 Dawson College Shooting (2 deaths)—to the purported alienation brought about by “the decades-long linguistic struggle” within the province of Quebec."

It should be written on Patrick Bourgeois article not the RRQ.

It is right, but this was in 2006. The RRQ have been created in 2007. Patrick Bourgeois was not the president of the RRQ at the time.

Second I will change that part...

"On March 17, 2008, the RRQ protested the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Montreal. A handful of RRQ members carrying the flag of Quebec were all but ignored behind the police barricade on the north side of Fort Street where they remained for the duration of the parade and the protest was a flop, both the Mouvement Québec français and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal distanced themselves from the RRQ's protest, issuing a communication supporting the Irish event and marching in the parade."

I will change it for User:Hyraelle version because it was better...

On March 17, 2008, the RRQ protested the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Montreal claiming it was too English, the RRQ waved Quebec, Patriote and Irish flags. Also the RRQ distributed leaflets commemorating links between Irish and Quebecers, including the involvement of Irish immigrants in the Patriote movement of 1837 in Lower Canada, as Quebec was known at the time. Patrick Bourgeois, the president of the RRQ, said that there are parallels between nationalism in Quebec and in Ireland. “The Irish Catholics fought to be respected, to defend their identity. We Quebec indépendantistes see ourselves in that. We’re taking the time to underline that.”

Here is the source..

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?k=19816&id=7ffd5a94-5a07-45c8-97ba-5eee95b8597e

It is not clear on 76.64.152.111 version. It said that the RRQ was manifesting against the Saint-Patrick parade but it don't say why. On User:Hyraelle version it clearly said the RRQ were manifesting claiming the parade was too English. Also 76.64.152.111 version claim it was a flop, it is not neutral, this is the personal opinion of the journalist...User:Québécois1837

3RR Rule

Okay, everybody stop it right now. I have officially placed a notice at the Administrator's Noticeboard about this article, and requesting that they lock the article. Please see WP:3RR for a detailed explanation of the three-revision rule. Frmatt (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

protection

I have protected the article for 4 days so that this can be resolved, but I invite any admin prepared to resolve it to remove the protection earlier than that. The ANI/I discussion is currently at [4]

Rewrite

I've started a rewrite here. If anyone has issues with the wording of this article, please leave a message on my talk page and we'll try to work on this collaboratively. When the block expires, we'll see if we can't get this article into shape without having to revert each other all the time. Frmatt (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is perfect, it clearly say that the RRQ was manifesting at the Saint-Patrick parade because they claim it was too English. But the part about L'Autre St. Jean have nothing to do on this article. In the reference it clearly say that it was the JPQ (Jeunes Patriotes) who were manifesting, not the RRQ. Only one member of the RRQ was there. Maybe we should also write that a RRQ member have been seen watching a Habs game in 2008 (Sarcasm). Also this page is a clear case of racism. You block all French Quebecers without exception claiming they are sockpuppet, I will make a complaint about that. WikiQc (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the part where it say the RRQ is not a recognized political party in the province of Quebec. I want to say that the RRQ never claim to be a political party. It is a militant organisation working for the independence of Québec with Manifestation, Radio, Journal, ect...WikiQc (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're completely wrong and full of hot air. French Quebecers are perfectly welcome to Wikipedia. One particular French Quebecer (you) is disruptive and has been blocked, and keeps making accounts trying to pretend to be different people. And those accounts are going to be blocked every time. So as I said before on another page, just give up. You're just wasting everyone's time, including your own. If you were to make a sincere effort to work with other editors on the content and not just be a political activist we wouldn't need to block you anymore. -- Atama頭 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am talking about, you are racist. I will be block because I am a French Québecers.WikiQc (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No you were blocked because you are a sockpuppet and a member of the RRQ and you lack a NPOV. When someone edits the article and you do not like it you always play the race card. Articles at Wikipedia are based on the facts and each fact should have a third-party citation. You see this article as your own and that it should be used for RRQ propaganda purposes. That is not what Wikipedia is about. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, I am not in an edit war. There is an individual who keeps creating sockpuppets to vandalize the article. Here are the sockpuppets. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17. This is the latest sockpuppet User:Québécois1837. This is the version of the article that is the consensus. Thank you 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically you were in an edit war, even though you were just trying to keep the article in good shape. In the future, it'll be easier on you if you go through the proper channels to get the sock blocked instead of continually reverting. I'd suggest that you look at getting an account and then possibly using Huggle and Twinkle which will automate a lot of the reporting and administrator notification tasks. Take a look at the version in my namespace (the link is above) and see what you think about it now. It's pretty much the version you linked to above, though I took out some inflamatory wording. Frmatt (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that if you get an account, it will be possible to deal with this sort of thing by semi-protecting the article. If you don't have an account, semi-protecting will block you just as much as the sock-puppeteer. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Looie, I appreciate the sound advise, but I am not going to be staying much longer. Would you be willing to police the RRQ article? Perhaps, a few of you can do it. Good luck. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the article just in case there are new sockpuppets. I've opened up an investigation into Québécois1837 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philbox17. I'd be amazed if it wasn't another sock. -- Atama頭 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep this on my watchlist as well. You were absolutely trying to do the right thing, you just went about it in the wrong manner. Hopefully we can catch any future socks before they cause as much trouble as this one did. Frmatt (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

This article is not neutral, 76.64.152.111 try to discredit and denigrate the RRQ. HabsMtl41 (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seem that the agreement made was...

On March 17, 2008, the RRQ protested the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Montreal claiming it was too English. Members of the RRQ waved Quebec, Patriote and Irish flags. Also the RRQ distributed leaflets commemorating links between Irish and Quebecers, including the involvement of Irish immigrants in the Patriote movement of 1837 in Lower Canada, as Quebec was known at the time. However, both the Mouvement Québec français and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal distanced themselves from the RRQ's protest.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?k=19784&id=9563d5b5-456d-40cc-b97a-90e3c58bf3fd

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?k=19816&id=7ffd5a94-5a07-45c8-97ba-5eee95b8597e

Saint Patrick Manifestation

The reference...

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?k=19816&id=7ffd5a94-5a07-45c8-97ba-5eee95b8597e

HabsMtl41 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009

The reference was removed as a copyright violation of [

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?k=19816&id=7ffd5a94-5a07-45c8-97ba-5eee95b8597e]. Frmatt (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vfp15

I took a look at this editors contributions, he/she is editing the RRQ article and related articles heavily. I suspect this person is either another sockpuppet and an RRQ member that lacks a NPOV. I will need help to deal with this editor to avoid 3RR. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Edits like this or this would imply that Vfp15 (talk · contribs) is neither a sockpuppet nor friend of Philbox17 (talk · contribs). Gabbe (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not a sockpuppet for Philbox17! The problems we are having here with the RRQ are spilling over from French wikipedia where we have had even more serious problems with Philbox17 and his sockpuppets. He has been banned from French Wikipedia, including an IP ban. I am no friend of his. I do not think he should be rehabilitated because he has no interest in Wikipedia, only with how Wikipedia portrays the RRQ. In fact he states here that he joined Wikipedia was on orders of his RRQ superiors specifically to take care of Wikipedia for the RRQ.

On the other hand, I suspect 76.64.152.111 is a Philbox17 sockpuppet. Vincent (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is that just a "no I'm not, you are" response? I doubt that the IP is Philbox17, since that IP has identified and pushed for the ban of the majority of Phil's sockpuppets. Did you spend even 5 seconds checking their contributions before making an unfounded accusation? (And yes, I acknowledge that the IP's accusation was just as unfounded.) -- Atama頭 01:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I should have looked at the edits themselves rather than at the pattern of edits on the history page. My fault. 76.64.152.111 is not a Philbox17 sockpuppet. Vincent (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

<-I'm liking User:Vfp15's version of the page best.. other versions seem to either give undue weight to criticism or attempt to add WP:OR – depending on which side of the dispute was editing.. As I am neither Canadian nor a French speaker – all I want to see is a page that meets our WP:NPOV policy. --Versageek 03:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have any problem with any of Vincent's edits either. -- Atama頭 04:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Frmatt

The user clearly admit that he is doing vandalism with 76.64.152.111

Look at that, on 76.64.152.111 user page, User talk:76.64.152.111 look what User:Frmatt said in the section, Your leaving... "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." NordiquesQc (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2009

If you are going to continue socking...could you at least come up with some creative ways of doing it? It's getting rather irritating having to continually block you when you do the same thing time after time. Frmatt (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

You clearly admit that you are doing vandalism on User talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. NordiquesQc (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009

I make no such statement. I will ask you to cease and desist your personal attack on me immediately as it could be perceived as libel and/or slander. Frmatt (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You clearly admit that you are doing vandalism on User talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." NordiquesQc (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009

I am unsure as to how you see that statement in the quote you provided. Nowhere do I admit vandalism, rather I give the user the appropriate credit for attempting to deal with difficulties in an article. You have made a false allegation against me, and I have reported it to WP:ANI. Frmatt (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You clearly give the user appropriate credit for making vandalism on the RRQ page, it is your own words. NordiquesQc (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2009

Frmatt is giving the IP credit for fighting vandalism, not for causing vandalism. -- Atama頭 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Open cases

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Philbox17

• WP:ANI#User Philbox17 and his three pairs of socks

• WP:COIN#Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Editors who are interested in this article are welcome to add their own comments to any of these cases. Since the users associated with the FRQ have shown no indication that they will respect the consensus here on Wikipedia, it seems likely that the accounts connected with the group will eventually be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For more on the admin discussions about Philbox17, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois article and User:WikiQc. After six months of semi-protection expired, a brand-new account, User:CH89, showed up on 12 June to restore some of the text that was argued about in the last edit war (a ceremony during a visit by Prince Charles that was disrupted by RRQ supporters throwing eggs). EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Philbox17 sockpuppets on French Wikipedia

See User:Philbox17 sockpuppets this list on the French Wikipedia. WritersCramp (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories

This article has been included in three categories which look innacurate.

• "Far-left politics" : Where is it stated that this is a far-left organisation ? To my knowledge they were opposed by Quebec communist and anarchist organizations. Perhaps there's a confusion with the FLQ here. Any sources ?
• "Guerrilla organizations" : How is this a guerrilla organization ? They maintain armed troops ?
• "Terrorism in Canada" : Despite an failed attempt by the current conservative governement to list them as such, I don't think this is correct. Sources ?

Given the amount of vandalism on this page maybe this got overlooked. zubrowka74 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia for political purposes

Just by looking at the sources, it is obvious that the English article on "Réseau de résistance du Québécois" (RRQ) in Wikipedia is pure propaganda. All sources are articles from English Canadian newspapers, which are notoriously hostile to the Québec independence movement. People such as Don MacPherson are strongly opposed to the RRQ and systematically try to associate it with the idea of violence and even terrorism, without factual evidence. MacPherson is abundantly quoted as a source in the Wikipedia article.

On June 8, 2010, MacPherson published yet another article where he tried to spread the idea that the RRQ is a violent organization. The RRQ replied, but MacPherson's newspaper, The Gazette, never published the reply. The RRQ published it and that reply (including the original English version) can be found (as well as a link to MacPherson's article) in the RRQ's web site. It demonstrates the complete lack of credibility of The Gazette when dealing with the issue of separatism in Québec.

Le royaume sordide et antidémocratique d'Ottawa http://resistancequebecoise.org/articles/communique/celebrons-le-royaume-sordide-et-antidemocratique-dottawa

The sources quoted in Wikipedia's article on the Réseau de résistance du Québécois should be diversified and qualified. For example, instead of writing "is a small militant politically radical fringe Quebec nationalist group", we should write "is a militant Québec nationalist group considered as radical by its opponents in English Canada". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacques Brel (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.195.90.142, 23 May 2011

I think this article is bad wrote, it's kind of article that should be only modified by the Wikipedia team and not users because of a Political conflict. For example, check the French version that is really better wrote, fr:Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Thanks for your time.

209.195.90.142 (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Unfortunately, that doesn't help most of us, since probably most editors here, like myself, can't read French. However, please note that, at least on English Wikipedia, there is no "Wikipedia team"--all wikipedia editors are volunteers, and all articles are open to for editing. Some, like this one, may be temporarily limited to only confirmed editors, or even temporarily locked from all editing because of disputes, but it is never the case that editing is permanently restricted to a special or elite team. If you have specific things that you believe should be changed, please explain, providing reliable sources as necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After being asked by the above editor, I've come back to take another look. One citation, that was supporting "fringe" failed to mention RRQ (in any of its names at all). I made a mistake on "militant"--after checking again, I see that the group is named in the article, and described as militant. However, WP:NPOV says we have to be extra careful about using charged terms like this, and I think we need to see more than one source using such a term to include it in the lead. Verification is important, but one verification of a POV word is not enough, as WP:UNDUE comes into play. Reading the rest of the article, I see a bunch of quotes from the group threatening violence (or something like it), but no actual violent activities. Without that, I certainly don't think we can use the term militant.

Regarding the rest of the article, it's not something I'm particularly interested in reviewing in detail on my own; however, if anyone has specific concerns, please direct them to me and I'll take a look when I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, been a pleasure to see someone serious in Wikipedia admit that this article need attention :) 174.138.196.108 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The RRQ at the 2011 Royal Tour

Sould we add a paragraph about the RRQ's manifestation against the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at Quebec City's Freedom of the City? --JaterGirl 22:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaterGirl (talk • contribs)

Nah, not worth it. This is a general article, not a blog of their activities. Vincent (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why keep the other events? This one has received international coverage. zubrowka74 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the other events. Vincent (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111006014333/http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= to http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120404072120/http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1725629&sponsor= to http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1725629&sponsor=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)