User talk:PresidentCoriolanus

Your edits regarding Maxime Bernier

There is no consensus that Bernier tweets is a controversy. If you want to make your point clear. Use the the talk page.

I did make my point clear, and you can use the talk page. There is widespread consensus that Bernier's tweets are a controversy

https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/8845640-bernier-controversy-boosts-liberal-coffers/ https://globalnews.ca/video/4392898/scheer-responds-to-berniers-controversial-tweets

There is a consensus that this is a controversy that has sparked a national debate on diversity and multiculturalism, and should be part of a new section, that elaborates further on this issue. :P PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Bernier talk page so that other users can comment on it.

Yes, you should use the talk page before removing the controversies section which is very much in line with Wikipedia :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Controversy%22_section

There is no need to ask for a second opinion, there is broad consensus across a variety of reliable sources that this has caused a :controversy, you are free to get a "second opinion" and then move on from there, but you are simply vandalizing the page now, as :adding a controversies section is a pretty standard part of organizing wiki pages, especially if not adding the section of a major :controversy interferes with a neutral point of view. Sis, stop snapping, and stop with the tea PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True but we are in an edit battle and your also removed a tweet that Bernier sent out and thats why I am asking for it. I just do not want this to be an edit war. Also do you think it should be its own wikipage so it will allow both perspectives on it.

I've already created a section in the talk page to discuss this. You can add that tweet, but it was not really the main crux of the outrage. If you look at national media, there wasn't much mention of the fact that it was sent on the day there were violent demonstrations in Charlottesville a year earlier, and that was what Bernier responded to in that cited tweet, furthermore, there is no need to quote that other entire tweet, as most of the context can be understood from what I had written and quoted. Such that he had said it would make us into "smaller and smaller tribes" and that more diversity would destroy what is "great" about the country. I think I included the valid context by summarizing his tweets, but it was also important to also include his subsequent tweets criticizing a park being named after a Pakistani leader, which then was linked to vandalism that occurred just afterwards against the same park, and drew criticism from Pakistani Canadian politicians across the board, that happened to represent the conservative party, which was also important to include, so honestly that would just have made it a non-summary if I didn't do that. I don't want this edit war either sis, but you are going to far by removing the very valid controversies section. Unlike his other twitter spat with that Liberal MP a few months ago that only got a little national attention, this has sparked a major controversy, getting the PM to comment, creating rifts among the conservative party, and clearly getting a lot of attention, to the point it is a valid controversy, that is a valid point to include on the page, as it follows a pattern of denial of systemic racism, and skepticism on the part of Bernier against multiculturalism and diversity PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check the National clip to see the Charlottesville comment. However, the skepticism of Bernier against multiculturalism might be because of langauge mishap. He responded to the term in an ipolitics article "https://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/15/maxime-bernier-says-hes-been-ready-to-run-for-years/". Also, it might be a Quebec thing: "Quebec differs from the rest of the nine provinces in that its policy focuses on interculturalism, which is referred to support for cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures- rather than multiculturalism" I also suggest you avoid using your feeling towards Bernier when making your view based on some of the words I have read.

I do understand Quebec's approach to integration places more emphasis on interculturalism, but I do not think that this is just a Quebec thing, for the following reasons:

- 1. Bernier clearly mentioned ethnic diversity in those series of tweets, and in his apparent critique of identity politics, there was an element of that which focused on such heterogeneity too, it was indicative that he was talking about much more than simply integration policy.
- 2. Bernier may very much be in support of cross-cultural dialogue, which does appear to be something Justin Trudeau supports too. Support for cultural dialogue, and preventing segregation of minority and racialized communities is something that is present across partisan lines, and support for an overarching national identity is something Trudeau implies is the purpose of his goal to find unity in cultural heterogeneity (https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/06/27/statement-prime-minister-canada-multiculturalism-day). However, the key difference between many other Canadian politicians and Bernier with regards to the topic of multiculturalism is that Bernier wants the trend of increasing diversity in this country to reverse, and has made comments that have been perceived by many individuals to be racist, and highly divisive, which most likely have not contributed positive to better social cohesion.
- 3. Bernier himself stated that more diversity would destroy what was apparently great about Canada, while affirming that he accepts that Canada will always have diversity, which indicates that there is an element here concerned about as he put it "cultural balkanization "as in greater diversity, rather than how to manage that diversity (such as through interculturalism, etc)
- 4. Bernier has traditionally strongly identified with religious freedom and libertarianism, which would be most likely (though I cannot confirm) put him in opposition to many policies imposed under the name of "French secularism" (which is quite prseent in Quebec) and integration measures such as bans on Niqabs, etc.

Sincerely, PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Settler colonialism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. nableezy - 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought as you said in your reason for revision "see talk shortly" that the revert was justified by the talk page but as I did not see any comments to the points I made on the talk page, I reverted again. My apologies, I should have waited.

I do think we should reach a consensus before removing minor changes that increase POV neutrality and accuracy.

Defining a theory as a concept is not a POV per se, or this article, for instance, needs changes: Primitive accumulation of capital

A concept is an abstract idea which is categorically is applicable to the development since the mid-1990s in settler-colonial studies and indigenous studies where the term 'settler colonialism' began to be theorized as a sociological process. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. These restrictions also apply to internal project discussions such as RMs, RFCs, project noticeboards, and merger and split threads, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder! I will make sure to adhere to the guidelines, my objective is to increase neutrality but I will still adhere to the guidelines. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above alert, please do not edit pages that relate to the IP conflict such as was done here until you meet the requirements to do so. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not automatically let you only edit until you meet the requirements? PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the page is protected. The majority of pages have specific talk page notices and edit notices but even if they don't it is usually obvious whether a page is A/IP related ("broadly construed"). Selfstudier (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]