Talk:Schwartz's

Start

Pretty good job done.

Around december and november, they make smoked ducks and geese too.

Takima 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Abie's

abie's in the west island is not mentioned among the other top smoked meat establishments in montreal. it was started by a relative of shwartz.

Kosher?

I've restored the recently deleted citation tag following the statement "Despite its name, it does not abide by Jewish dietary laws, and the food served in the restaurant is not kosher". In short "common knowledge" does not meet the criteria called for in Wikipedia's verifiability policy and appears to run counter to burden of evidence. A fact considered common knowledge should be easily sourced. I must add that this very same issue has been the subject of considerable debate at the talk page of Montreal-style bagel. Victoriagirl 05:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I found a citation for the kosher thing and will try to find one for the others, too. I recall reading about the no franchising decision in a Gazette feature but cannot find it online. In the meantime, let's all eat less smoked meat and more soy.Shawn in Montreal 16:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"No longer Jewish-owned"

Ha? Say it ain't so, Joe: B'nai Brith: "While Schwartz’ delicatessen is no longer Jewish-owned, it is still perceived to be a Jewish institution."[1]

WPCANADA

I have corrected WPCANADA imperialism (see Template talk:WikiProject Canada) which removes Montreal portals and banners even though it is an unrelated WikiProject, and has not been authorized by WPMONTREAL to do anything of the sort. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quebec language politics and Bill 101

---

Below is a user Talk-page discussion started with DunnsMainDeliFan, in response to my removing a section on Bill 101 and the edit war that ensued. It seems it was a good faith edit, so moving it here to continue...

---

Hello DunnsMainDeliFan. I thought I'd reach out to you concerning your recent edits to Schwartz's and Dunn's, and what's rapidly descending into an edit-war. You inserted sections in both articles (using identical text!), titled either "Bill 101" and "Quebec language dispute", that have little to no relevance to the articles in question. And beyond that, I found them written in a very slanted and personal point of view that I found offensive and antisemitic.

First it needs to be pointed out, Quebec's language laws have been around for almost 50 years, and have been a source of contention and division. They violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as fundamental basic human rights as pointed out by the United Nations. They fall into the same category as the Jim Crow laws and need not be pasted to restaurant articles. Furthermore, these draconian and human right violating laws have been applied to ALL businesses and operations in Quebec, Dunn's and Schwartz's are not unique here, not by far. Nor is the incident of perceived antisemitism by the nationalistic Quebec government. The government (PQ/CAQ) has openly shown itself to be antisemitic on many an occasion (see: the "Matzah Gate" incident, or Bill 21--that bans teachers, doctors, police, etc from wearing Kepas or the Star of David on jewellery, or their harassment and targeting of the Hasidic community and schools during the pandemic. If you wish to add this information, please add it to the articles on Bill 101, Bill 96, not here.

I feel I need to quote what you added to previous edits: "several Jewish delicatessens ran afoul of the law" and "Dunn's got into trouble with Bill 101 for having the English term". Talking about the Jewish community running afoul, or getting 'in trouble' for fighting against these laws is a very slanted and POV form of writing.

I perceive what you've added as more a platform for these so-called laws, or a way of shaming for opposing them (as so many countless other business have done over the decades). Do we need to talk about Bill 101 for EACH and EVERY business that has fought a legal battle against these vitreous and hateful laws? No. If Dunn's and Schwartz's had been ground breaking legal cases, reported about internationally, I could perhaps see some relevance, but adding this in is just a way of shaming a specific group (Jewish persons) for as you say, running afoul of the law.

I have asked you several times to stop undoing my reverts and bring this to the Talk page of each article if you wish to discuss it, assuming it was a edit in good faith. If so, perhaps we can work in anything of relevance regarding the topic into the article(s), if it merits it. I welcome your edit contributions as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, and always happy to assist, I wouldn't want to see you blocked again which is why I'm reaching out. Thanks for your understanding!--Apple2gs (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with having the deli content solely in Bill 101 is that this completely omits the history as it applies particularly to Dunn's and Schwartz's establishments, who went to court to fight the order to change their store signs. Furthermore, Myer Dunn was instrumental in getting "smoked meat" as an official term in both languages, and that is quite groundbreaking. If you think it is POV then by all means you can tag it and rewrite it, but whitewashing this allegedly antisemitism is unacceptable. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Another way of saying it is that Dunn's and Schwartz's history is incomplete if Bill 101 is omitted, the language dispute is as relevant if not more relevant than change in ownership and location. I don't see this content as "shaming" a particular group since these delis had longstanding practices, rather it was to illustrate how overzealous the law was in disregarding tradition. Lastly the reader should not have to dig deep into Bill 101's article to find this content. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

First, I think a separate and dedicated section called "Bill 101" gives far too much attention and importance to what is nothing more than a ridiculous and silliness law (or rather a hate measure, calling it a "law" goes against the spirit of the word). If there is any merit to adding Bill 101 to the article, and that remains to be seen, I'd suggest working it into the history section at best.

As I mentioned above, Schwartz's sign and menu item rewording situation is not unique here, so many other countless businesses have been harassed and hounded by the OQOLF (aka Quebec's Language Police), I don't see this case being stand out or unique. Smoked meat is smoked meat is smoked meat, NO ONE, not even a unilingual French person, calls it "Boeuf Mariné". Anymore than I would call Filet Mignon the literal translation: "Cute cut" or "dainty cut". Nor would any English person call "cirque de Soleil" the "Sun Circus". Saying it is ground breaking that there has been an official proclamation smoked meat is now a universal name, when it always has been, is absurd. Quebec language pettiness makes it the laughing stock of the world, this is just yet a another of many examples of it (like the QOLF banning the word "pasta" a few years back!). That silliness deserves no mention, not here and not anywhere, otherwise you are validating it. If anything, you could restore the mention that Schwartz's was forcibly made to change its name on its sign from Montreal Hebrew Delicatessen to "Charcuterie Hébraïque de Montréal". Though why bother? Acknowledging that bullying on an international worldwide website doesn't help anyone except Quebec's over zealot government officials. They have no reach here, thankfully. And their pettiness is on full display under the photo of Schwartz's sign for all the world to see. It's not about whitewashing, it is about not acknowledging Quebec's petty and silly rules or giving them any validation whatsoever. We can focus on the article's subject matter and not Quebec politics--Apple2gs (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

While you believe that this pettiness is not worth mentioning, it could be in the larger context of how draconian and potentially racist that Bill 101 was perceived. (In fact a regular of Schwartz's, writer Mordecai Richler, has indeed been quite public with his criticism of Bill 101 as part of Quebec's history of anti-Semitism.) I would not want to give the impression that this controversy should be forgotten, as I've noticed certain editors using this as a pretext for censorship. I would have generally preferred for such content to remain in the article but be tagged as NPOV or undue weight, as other editors can bring in their views on whether it needs to be rewritten.

For Bill 101's effect, I didn't bother mentioning Bill 101 for Bens or Main Deli since I couldn't find any sources yet. I'll concede that this can be mentioned in Schwartz's history section without a header. However, I feel that Dunn's does merit a separate section since Myer Dunn took the lead in fighting the OQOLF over "smoked meat". DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You may have a valid point, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood what your intent was. For some background, I had been followed and harassed over the course of several years by one anonymous Wikipedia editor who was very pro-Bill 101 and unfortunately, bigoted towards Anglophones (you'll see most of the fallout and belittlement on Ben's Deli's Talk page). When I saw someone putting mentions of Bill 101 into Montreal smoked meat articles, I thought perhaps he returned. Looks like I was mistaken.

I'd like to see what others have to say, but I think if we do put some or all of it back, it needs to be done in a way so it doesn't come across sounding in support or promoting the language law (neutrality is important, generally). I suppose it depends how significant these cases were. There was an interesting documentary with Mordecai Richler interviewed on 60 Minutes back in the mid-90's, and he specifically talks about Schwartz's and language laws forced upon them. It's archived on YouTube, it may help with some of this research you're doing, have a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxeQpGasEME

At any rate, let's see if others are interested in joining the discussion, though either way, if I can help integrate relevant information you have to add, I'm glad to assist (and I do quite agree about the anti-Semitism of Bill 101, you'll see examples of it in the video documentary above).--Apple2gs (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that pro-Bill 101 editors aim to remove or downplay any controversies that the law had upon Jewish-owned businesses. I've seen whitewash behavior from pro-Putin and pro-Russia editors over topics like election interference, cyberwarfare, and disinformation and war crimes from the 2022 Russian Ukraine War. Ironically, if these editors are trying so hard to suppress or censor certain content that they find "offensive", it only further validates the inclusion of such material. Of course neutrality is important, but I'm confident that the effect of Bill 101 can be told as a sequence of events, as a reader should at least know that these incidents happened so they can draw their own conclusions rather than be left in the dark. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)