Jump to content

Talk:André Arthur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to Jbamb re 17:22, 11 February 2006

[edit]

You wrote in your edit of 17:22, 11 February 2006 Jbamb: (I don't see support in talk, and don't see the connection between the complaint and the article. Where does it say anything about right-wing?) See the version of 16:46, 28 January 2006 by 156.34.71.29. It was written that he was right-wing (on the political spectrum) and that he was a self-described libertarian. Libertarians do not believe that they are right-wing and they do not believe that the left-right spectrum is adequate to display the range of political systems from oppression to liberty.

Cap j 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equating Libertarianism with being Right-Wing

[edit]

Andre Arthur is a self-described libertarian. Libertarians do not believe that they are right-wing any more than they believe that they are left-wing for supporting personal freedoms. See the Nolan Chart. It is not right to slander this man by calling him right-wing, thus implying that he opposes personal freedoms while supporting economic freedoms, thus calling him inconsistent. To establish that he is right-wing, evidence of anti-personal-freedom views need to be supplied. Does he oppose abortion, gay marriage or drug use or any other types of personal freedoms? If so, some quotes by him establishing this need to be supplied. If he is shown to be right-wing, then any statement that he is libertarian except quoted claims by him should then be removed.

Impact on the Referendum

[edit]

The page says:

"He has been blamed by many Parti Québécois analysts as one of the biggest reasons for their loss of the 1995 referendum."

I think that this is exagerated. It is true however that it was said that he had an impact on local politics for many years.

Nevertheless, I think that the above sentence should be removed.

Alain Michaud 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote the message above, someone anonymously added the following sentence in main page:

"Support for sovereignty grew from 40.44 % to 49.42 % province-wide between the 1980 referendum and the 1995 one, but in most Greater Quebec City area ridings, support for sovereignty grew much less, and in some cases actually declined."

This is not an argument to the previous sentence ("He has been blamed [..] as one of the biggest reasons for their loss of the 1995 referendum"). Although he was a radio announcer for many years, and was elected in 2006, it is not reasonable to pretend that he had any influence in 1980-1995. Again, there in NO proof that he had any impact on the 1995 referendum.

Andre Arthur's influence was mainly on local politics. He opposed to Jean Lalier (Mayor of Quebec) for many years, then Mrs Boucher (Mayor of Ste-Foy) and MANY others who were only involved on the local scene.

Alain Michaud 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly your right to believe that Arthur's influence on the referendum was negligible. However, the fact that you can't prove that Arthur had an influence, does not mean that you (a general you) can prove that he did not have an influence. This being said, it is a fact that Parti Québécois analysts disagree with your assessment, whether they are right or wrong, and even if one assumes that they are indeed wrong, it changes nothing to the fact that this is what they believe. And since increases of support for a political option are in general relatively uniformly spread among francophones all over the province, the fact that Quebec City did not follow the provincial movement does support the theory that you reject, even if it is not a proof in the strict sense.
It is also your right to believe that Arthur did not have "any influence" prior to 1995, but fact remains that most people perceived him as influent -- not that they were necessarily happy about it.
-- ABCXYZ 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ABCXYZ,

thank you for your reply.

You are right: This is all a question of perception. What really counts are the FACTS. What is written on the main page should be "solid". If you could come up with one quote from a PQ politician about his role during the 1980-1995 period then I would admit that I was wrong. Of course this should be a quote from long time ago, because now that he has been elected, it is too easy to pretend that he had an impact before!

I agree that now he is a very influent person. The proof is that he was elected. I do not know exactly when or how his popularity rose, but I sincerely think that it was after 1995. Maybe it has to do when ADQ made some strategic alliance with some radio stations in the Quebec area?

It could also be linked with the elections in Ste-Foy where he made a strategic aliance with Mrs Boucher. There were about a dozen of political events on local scene where he was involved, all after 1995. It is not clear what were the main factors!

If he had been such an influent person even before the referendum to the point that people would change their mind for him, then why was he not elected before? I thought he tried to be elected a few times and failed?

Cheers

Alain Michaud 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He has been blamed by many Parti Québécois analysts as one of the biggest reasons for their loss of the 1995 referendum."

I've heared this many times on CHOI-FM, especially from Gilles Parent. I don't recall hearing this from André Arthur. If I recall correctly, Parent said that "people at the PQ" told him that that "they" (non left-wing radios) we're blamed for the loss of the referendum. He never gave names, and I think that the people at the PQ who said that would not like to be quoted. Anyway, it's more speculation than fact, I don't believe that it should be put in an encyclopedia.

At least it could be worded diffently, something like: "There has been speculation that he was one of the causes for the lower than average support for the "yes" in the Québec City area in the 1995 referendum."

Hi to the person writing the message just above this one,

regarding the sentence: "There has been speculation that he was one of the causes for the lower than average support for the "yes" in the Québec City area in the 1995 referendum."

I fully agree with that sentence:

1 - the word "speculation" is very soft.

2 - "one of the source" is good too!

Therefore, as far as I am concerned there nothing to add.

Cheers

Alain Michaud 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has to do when ADQ made some strategic alliance with some radio stations in the Quebec area?

It seems to me that it's the opposite. CHOI-FM gained great political power when their CRTC refused to renew their license. After that, the ADQ has offered its support to the station and bought lots of advertising time during the Sylvain Legaré's candidacy in Vanier. It is my understanding that André Arthur surfed on that wave to support Andrée Boucher for mayor and himself for independant.

Gfk 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language

[edit]

Does Arthur broadcast in English or French?--68.102.252.87 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French. 70.50.99.241 05:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian

[edit]

The page says:

"André Arthur's political views generally lie in the libertarian area of the political chart, since he is interested in reducing statist intervention in the economy and reducing taxes in Canada and Quebec, and since no anti-personal-liberty viewpoints on his part are known (see the Nolan Chart)."

I would bet that he never pronounced the word "libertarian" himself... Not to say anything about what he would say about those ideas. lol.

This whole paragraph is non-sence and should removed without any further justification.

Alain Michaud 19:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's made many interviews with Martin Masse, the publisher of Le Québécois Libre, the only libertarian magazine in Québec. In all of them he was asking Masse for a libertarian point of view of a particular event. Often, Arthur would say before or during the interview that he's a libertarian himself.

Here are some of the interviews:

More can be found by searching for "arthur" in Le blogue du QL

Gfk 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gfk

I though that I would have a look at your links above, then I started reading the first one:

The very first line of this link says:

"André Arthur m'a fait raconter hier en entrevue comment mon ex-ami Stephen Harper, un sympathisant libertarien et lecteur du QL lorsqu'il dirigeait la National Citizens Coalition il y a quelques années, est devenu un politicien étatiste et hypocrite comme les autres en tant que chef du Parti conservateur."

And now Stephen Harper was a libertarian...

Come on, that is not serious...

Quite frankly, I suspect that you are very much involved with this libertarian party. Am I wrong?

Question: Why did he (Arthur) present himself as an independent since he likes the libertarian party so much?

Cheers

Alain Michaud 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now Stephen Harper was a libertarian... Come on, that is not serious...

That's what Martin Masse says, and if you take the time to listen to the interview, you'll know the whole story. If you're actually saying that Martin Masse jugment of libertarianism is wrong, then you should reconsider your definition of libertarianism.

Quite frankly, I suspect that you are very much involved with this libertarian party. Am I wrong?

If you had taken to time to read the site, you would have understood that Le Québécois Libre is not a political party. It actually promotes the boycott of politics in general: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/020511-2.htm

However, I am a reader of the magazine but I'm not more involved with this group than that.

Question: Why did he (Arthur) present himself as an independent since he likes the libertarian party so much?

The best thing would be to ask him, but I suspect that it's because the libertarian party of Canada is in really bad health.

Gfk 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gfk,

After I wrote that line: "I suspect that you are very much involved with this libertarian party", then I realized that I went too far. I would like to apologize. This page is a forum about politics, then why wonder if someone belongs a political party! I was foolish on that one.

The point that I was carrying during my comments was about the main ("article") page. It is very clear to me that this page should not be biased. For me the only way is to achieve this goal is to avoid any detailed analysis, but just to stick with the facts or a few citations (including references!).

I must admit that I know very little about this movement (libertarian). I know that since one week or two I hear about it everywhere. It certainly has to do with Harper being elected in Ottawa, and the fact that I was discussing with you!

In any case, I think that I will not continue the discussion on this. When I first came to see this page, I just wanted to learn more about the elections. I must admit that I am far from those "right wing" ideas myself. (I know this not "right" but "left-Right" at the same time)

André Arthur was (is) a very controversial person, therefore It is normal that his web page is filled with all sorts of ideas as well, so I suspect that this forum ("discussion" page) will soon display many messages and ideas to write about...

Good luck...

Alain Michaud 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, he is a self-described libertarian. It is basic to Wikipedia that it is legitimate to say "P-ists believe P", and giving more information on those beliefs is very much the function of an encyclopedia. "Libertarians believe that their views cannot be described by the traditional left-right spectrum and require a chart (see the Nolan Chart." Surely you and everybody else will agree that it is the function of an encyclopedia to give all possible clarifying information, no?

Since he does seem to have some very light anti-personal-freedom beliefs (see the section below "Libertarian vs. Right-wing"), the sentence at top could be changed to read: "André Arthur's political views generally lie in the libertarian area of the political chart, since he is interested in reducing statist intervention in the economy and reducing taxes in Canada and Quebec, but he may be slightly to the right of pure libertarianism (see the Nolan Chart)."

Cap j 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence could be amplified to clarify that we are talking about "P-ists believe P": "André Arthur's political views generally lie in the libertarian area of the political chart, since he is interested in reducing statist intervention in the economy and reducing taxes in Canada and Quebec, but he may be slightly to the right of pure libertarianism (see the Nolan Chart -- as he is a self-described libertarian, it is important to note that libertarians believe that the traditional left-right spectrum is inadequate to portray all political viewpoints and that an extra dimension is needed to chart a range from oppression to individual liberty)."

Cap j 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right to say that "P-ists believe Q" (that libertarian is right-wing).Cap j 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting tidbit is that I heard on CBC that he often plays "The Muppets" theme song on his radio show in order to lampoon the politicians in parliament. Cap j 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text removal, section merge

[edit]

I merged the political candidacy and politics section. There wasn't much reason to have such small and similar sections separate.

While merging, I removed:

In his final days as a radio host, about 500 people responded to his invitations to have coffee and discuss politics at local restaurants, sending a clear signal to his opponents that Mr. Arthur was no symbolic candidate. The outspoken radio host stated that he was "in it to win" the riding from the incumbent Bloc Québécois MP. [1]

It lacked context, and probably shouldn't have been there to begin with--at least not as it was written. It sounded more like propaganda from the campaign office than encyclopaedic content.

FireWorks 06:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sticking with NPOV facts is best. --Deathphoenix 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The removed part makes much more sense once you realize that he was a candidate in the 1994 Quebec provincial election and in the 1997 Sainte-Foy municipal election, and that in both cases he did absolutely nothing to get elected, this in addition to publicly saying in the latter case that if he won he would ask for a judicial recount. This time he really wanted to be elected and while he did not campaign in the traditional sense (i.e. no signs and no campaign team, although he did meet voters in shopping centers and other such places), he did distribute business cards to voters to remind them to vote for him on Election Day, which resulted in him having spent maybe $1000 this time instead of the mere $1.88 spent in 1994. Hope this helps. -- ABCXYZ 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MP designation

[edit]

I think it's premature to put MP after his name as he won't be sworn in until next month (meaning whoever is the incumbent MP for the riding is still the MP for a few more weeks). Does anyone know if there's a policy on this? Otherwise I recommend it be removed until it actually officially applies. 23skidoo 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was careful not to put that in before, and I will do so again. --Deathphoenix 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? At Westminster MPs lose their status at dissolution and get it back at the declaration of the returning officer. No need to swear the oath (Google "Gerry Adams MP" [2]) 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian vs. right-wing

[edit]

Having been a listener of André Arthur from 1987 to 2005, I can attest that he did defined himself as a libertarian on the air. He also did praise on many occasions Le Québécois Libre, a libertarian online magazine, and U.S. Congressman (and former Libertarian presidential candidate) Ron Paul.

I do not beleive that.

Alain Michaud 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a fact that Arthur is generally viewed as right-wing. Even if one decides that libertarianism is not right-wing, this does not result in a contradiction.

Libertarianism is generally defined as right-wing, which is totally logical as not all libertarians subscribe to social liberalism, while all subscribe to economic conservatism. For instance, many libertarians oppose abortion and legal recognition of homosexual marriage (even though they do not necessarily support returning to / maintaining the traditional definition of marriage as some want to get government out of the marriage business). But you won't find libertarians who want to pay more taxes.

One can be generally libertarian (or conservative, or liberal, or whatever else) without supporting every single typical or official libertarian position on every conceivable issue.

The Nolan Chart is a marginal reference when it comes to defining the political spectrum and is generally used for that "World's smallest political quiz", which is solely a recruitment tool for the American Libertarian Party, and as such it is not appropriate to use it as a reference.

Arthur is is favour of legalized abortion (said of Henry Morgentaler that he made thousands of women happy), supported Robert Latimer, opposed homosexual marriage and said it would lead to other types of marriage by eventual suppression of other traditional conditions of marriage (the "slippery slope" argument, although he said that as a MP he would abstain from voting on this subject unless his constituents tell him to do otherwise), and opposes relaxing drug laws. He is in favour of cutting taxes, massive privatization, and opposes most other government programs and regulations, although he supports tougher anti-smoking laws. Overall that seems to qualify as generally right-wing, and generally libertarian.

-- ABCXYZ 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describing someone as left- or rightwing is not encyclopedia worthy. One can do better than that. Especially since these notions are basically vacuous. Intangible 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Arthur is a self-described libertarian. Libertarians do not believe that they are right-wing any more than they believe that they are left-wing for supporting personal freedoms. See the Nolan Chart. It is not right to slander this man by calling him right-wing, thus implying that he opposes personal freedoms while supporting economic freedoms, thus calling him inconsistent. To establish that he is right-wing, evidence of anti-personal-freedom views need to be supplied. Does he oppose abortion, gay marriage or drug use or any other types of personal freedoms? If so, some quotes by him establishing this need to be supplied. If he is shown to be right-wing, then any statement that he is libertarian except quoted claims by him should then be removed.

>It is also a fact that Arthur is generally viewed as right-wing.

That is quite a circumlocution. That doesn't make him so.

>Even if one decides that libertarianism is not right-wing, this does not result in a contradiction.

Yes it does. It is a fundamental principle of logic that an entity cannot both have and not have an attribute. If libertarianism is not right-wing, then an entity cannot simultaneously be libertarian and right-wing (not libertarian).

>Libertarianism is generally defined as right-wing

NO IT IS NOT [edit -- see extremely clarifying addition (I hope) below]

>, which is totally logical as not all libertarians subscribe to social liberalism, while all subscribe to economic conservatism. For instance, many libertarians oppose abortion and legal recognition of homosexual marriage (even though they do not necessarily support returning to / maintaining the traditional definition of marriage as some want to get government out of the marriage business). But you won't find libertarians who want to pay more taxes.

It's just that the current conservatives are closer to libertarianism than the current liberals. Thus some conservatives are joining the libertarians and trying to hijack the name because it's trendy. The socialists are also trying to hijack the name, as well. And you *will* find some people in the libertarian area who are arguing that we need some government aggression against economic freedoms; they are writing that in the US LP News paper all the time. I just fired off a letter to LP News complaining about someone who wrote a big column saying we need some taxation. (We don't. Government can fundraise like anyone else if it wants money).

>One can be generally libertarian (or conservative, or liberal, or whatever else) without supporting every single typical or official libertarian position on every conceivable issue.

But not by too much, or else one leaves the libertarian area.

>The Nolan Chart is a marginal reference

No it's not.

>when it comes to defining the political spectrum and is generally used for that "World's smallest political quiz", which is solely a recruitment tool for the American Libertarian Party, and as such it is not appropriate to use it as a reference.

Yes it is, because it makes sense. "Making sense" is where knowledge *comes from*. Think of how the traditional spectrum curves together at the ends -- the left end curves downward to meet the right end. There is little difference between Stalin and Hitler. Similarly it can also curve up -- it is today's small-c conservatives who are trying to preserve classical liberalism. Thus it is the up-down direction that is most important. What's "up"? Obviously individual liberty and bound government. What's "down"? Obviously government that is free (to do as it pleases) and individuals who are tied up. It is not that it is used by the LPUSA (and promoted by the Advocates for Self-Government) that legitimizes it, it is that it makes sense.

>Arthur is is favour of legalized abortion (said of Henry Morgentaler that he made thousands of women happy), supported Robert Latimer, opposed homosexual marriage and said it would lead to other types of marriage by eventual suppression of other traditional conditions of marriage (the "slippery slope" argument, although he said that as a MP he would abstain from voting on this subject unless his constituents tell him to do otherwise), and opposes relaxing drug laws. He is in favour of cutting taxes, massive privatization, and opposes most other government programs and regulations, although he supports tougher anti-smoking laws. Overall that seems to qualify as generally right-wing, and generally libertarian.

It's tough to believe you, due to your previous statements, which are not very rigorous. However, if we could get some more evidence about his quotes from some more people that agree with your assertions here, then it would be more accurate to say that Arthur seems to be in or close to the libertarian area while actually being slightly to the right of it, NOT that libertarianism = right wing, which is incorrect and slanders the libertarian position by equating it with aggression against personal freedoms.

For another thing, why have two words to mean the same thing? The obvious reason for attempting that is to confuse the issue and destroy rational thought, thus leaving the field open for left-wingers to dictate the terms of understanding and thereby control people. (This is why the Pun is the lowest form of humor -- it destroys the language by preventing its ability to communicate unambiguously).

Extremely clarifying addition (I hope)

Calling libertarians right-wing may even slander them far more than implying that they oppose personal freedoms -- when I was in Grade 10 in high school, my history teacher referred to the Libertarian candidate in the local all-candidates' meeting at the time as being "far-right-wing". This created in my mind the idea that libertarians were some kind of fascists or something, and I didn't learn the truth for a long time. The teachers need teaching! That same history teacher mentioned the point that the traditional political spectrum curves downward and that there isn't much to choose from between communists and fascists (the communists are just masters of propaganda and fooling people that they are in favor of The Brotherhood of Man while they are mass-murdering their millions). He didn't seem to know about the Nolan Chart concept. It seems to me that in an encyclopedia, of all places, information should be clearly and completely presented, including the extremely illuminating concept of the Nolan Chart and the concept of libertarianism. This isn't the place to hide and marginalize concepts. The top tip of the Nolan Chart refers to an objective concept, meaning "Individuals totally free and government totally bound." As an aside, I actually believe in just a few good laws, to uphold personal and property rights, such as the sanctity of voluntary contracts, so I might be down a bit from the tip, but still neither left nor right -- I hope this illustrates that the Nolan Chart is an objective concept, not a Libertarian propaganda tool. See the Nolan Chart talk page. The Nolan Chart should be referred to everywhere that there is a discussion about the political "spectrum". Some right-wingers also try to marginalize the libertarians by calling them "libertines", when they are not trying to hijack the term. Libertarians get called "The druggie and hooker" parties by right-wingers.

Independent Adequiste?

[edit]

Arthur's views are probably closer to the Provincial Adequistes than they are to anyone else. He said on CPAC that he most agrees with the conservatives that the individual is the more important. He has also criticized the general political process, seen by his criticism of the GG Ms. Jean, a common trait of many third parties and political outsiders - especially on the right. He also holds many views similair to those of the Quebec nationalists which were attracted to Mulroney in the 1980's, though as he mentions is quite dissaffected with what happened with that support.

I agree with that opinion. This makes real sense.

Alain Michaud 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last section...

[edit]

Does this articel need it? It seems extremely out of place and not very well integrated at all... as though someone dropped it here. 68.39.174.238 02:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree and I've added the NPVO tag on it. He may have said what is reported there, but the exact role of adding this quote there is highly questionnable and it is taken out of context anyway. --Childhood's End 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this section as of today. It has no purpose and is defamatory. --Childhood's End 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal note

[edit]

I don't want to make my life public but If I have hobbies like listening to radio and it's not her taste I would understand, I would appreciate the gesture of having interest in what I do but in that case it's not everybody's cup of tea, I don't know her much but oddly I don't imagine her listening to that unless she really changed her mind about peoples of her small advanced group, her who seem to love everybody... it's sure that she like things I don't like...

70.51.7.95 11:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on André Arthur. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on André Arthur. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:André_Arthur&oldid=1256885384"