Talk:Quebec/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

On the controversy over Harper's motion

The English language media of Corporate Canada fabricated an issue over Harper's motion because Québécois was used instead of "Quebecer" in the English text. I believe that if we are to assert, as a fact, that the inhabitants of Quebec, historically French Canada, as a community whose political existence predates that which was born in 1867, by the consolidation of British North America, constitute a nation on the basis of the properties of their common institutions, we are going to need more than a motion without any legal or political implication in itself.

When you look at it from an exterior point of view, the controversy appears quite silly. The use of a French word inside an English phrase conveys a meaning that cannot exist in other languages and even its very connotation is alien to most English speakers who are not Canadians. The French word Québécois used in a French text, in the courts, in the National Assembly or in the House of Commons, can only mean the body of the citizens of Quebec, no matter what individually or collectively many may feel about it. Same for "Canadians" who can only mean the citizens of Canada in a formal context, despite Joe Canadian who tend to think of English-speaking people who pronounce some words differently from Americans. The controversy over the motion simply did not cross the linguistic divide. I have personally wasted much saliva trying to explain friends who don't speak much English why there was a controversy in the first place. I met only disbelief. -- Mathieugp 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion focussed on whether reference to this motion belongs in the lead of this article. I'm not even sure where you stand on this. This commentary is a prime example of why I argue that mention of this topic doesn't belong in the lead: it opens uo the discussion page of a Class-A article to all sorts of ideological and political debates that have no place here. --Soulscanner 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see here that Soulscanner wants to impose his POV and he does it in a very un-democratic way. I hate Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.165.98 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"I hate Canada." That speaks much of your views which have no value here in the Wiki. Please, keep that to yourself and your Canada-hating friends in real life. Pieuvre 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pieuvre, you are a traitor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.165.97 (talk • contribs) date

I disagree on the certainty of the word "quebecois" used in an English sentence meaning "any resident of Quebec", whether Harper meant it that way or not, and the English media did not fabricate alternate connotations for that word. Furthermore, there has been some talk about Harber's motion being "damage control" after Michael Ignatieff's statement the previous month. I do agree that non-Canadians, and especially non-Quebecers, might not have a grasp of the subtleties of meaning and so we owe those outsiders a thorough explaination, but not in this article—there are much more appropriate articles in which to open this can of worms. In a word, I feel that Harper's motion should not be included in the lead of this article. CWPappas 06:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "fabricated an issue over Harper's motion" not "fabricate alternate connotations for that word". The connotations behind the word "Quebecois" inside an English text is peculiar to English and understood only by some Canadians. Most Quebecers simply cannot understand why there is an issue in English-speaking Canada because 1) they do not know the history of the use of the word "Quebecois" in English (and that is a good thing because otherwise they would scream) and 2) they do not have, for the great majority, the required command of the English tongue. -- Mathieugp 12:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The media didn't fabricate an issue over Harper's motion, they reported the fact that the English-language version of the motion used a word with multiple connotations in that language. The English word "Quebecer" would have clearly conveyed "all residents of Quebec" but Harper used the more ambiguous French word. When asked to clarify whether "Quebecois" was meant as a term inclusive of all residents of Quebec regardless of linguistic origin, clarification by Harper, and those in his entourage, was not given... they skirted around the issue. I remember seeing that on the television reports. The real issue was that given the chance to clarify, which would have been as simple a task as saying "Yes, we mean Quebecois to mean all residents of Quebec regardless of lingustic or ethnic origin", there was no such clarification.

That most Quebecers simply cannot understand why there is an issue in "English-speaking Canada", and among anglophone Quebecers, is irrelevant because of the reasons you gave. The media was reporting on an announcement given in English, so if they do not understand the meaning of the word in English, it is "normal" [sorry Rene] that they would not understand "the issue". And why would "they scream", as you said, at the idea that in English a French word may have a different meaning than when used in French? That the controversy did not cross the linguistic divide is likewise irrelevant to "the issue" — it is understood that the word Quebecois refers to the francophone population of Quebec in French and in all connotations in English.

Part of the reason why this is an issue at all lies in the fact that Quebec anglophones are not sure if they are included in the collective term Quebecois because of how it has been used in the past. The Parti Quebecois enacted laws that made all non-French commercial signs illegal. Was this because they viewed Portuguese or Chinese as a threat, or would making only English signs illegal be seen for the xenophobic act it was, a bid to "de-anglisize" Quebec? Is the Parti Quebecois a party for all Quebecers, including the anglophones, or is it just there to represent the interests of one segment of the population? In 1995 when Jacques Parizeau said "Si vous voulez, on va cesser de parler des francophones du Québec, voulez-vous? On va parler de nous à 60%.", to what 60% was he referring? Somehow I didn't think he was including me, a born-and-bred Quebec anglophone, in his idea of "nous". Surely most Quebecers should scream at the attempts by Quebec politicians to eradicate its own anglophone community. CWPappas 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything that you wrote there is precisely what they would scream about. Its hard to image that such non-nonsensical prejudice and slander could circulate for so long, reach out so many people, almost never denounced as unfounded and pernicious, regarding any other minority group of Canada. To a great deal of Quebecers, especially those who voted Yes in 1995, what you wrote sounds like "Isn't it obvious that we are right to slander an entire nation, degrade her humanity, vomit on her leaders without any respect for truth just to be sure we do not miss those vicious nationalists who desire for Africa to be African and not European, to denounce the persecution of the French minorities by dangerous socialist and francophobic Arabophones who say they want to eradicate the negative effects of a foreign power's century-old political influence over the majority of them under the false pretext of fighting an imaginary inequality resulting from the supposed imperialism of a certain France, or likewise for Great Britain in relation to her African and other colonies?" -- Mathieugp 20:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think partly the issue of using Québécois in English is that much of the Anglophone population of Québec does not feel as if they are included within this category, or perhaps do not feel Québécois despite the fact that they likely have just as profound an attachment to Québec as those who do feel Québécois. Whether or not the term in French refers to all people who inhabit Québec is not relevant. As this is the English language Wikipedia it is important to recognize that simply stating that "the Québécois form a nation within Canada" is confusing for many. Does this mean that Francophone Quebecers are a nation, does it mean all Quebecers form a nation, or does it mean some Quebecers and not others. While this may not be an issue for the Francophone majority of Québec, many other people in Québec, and English Canada could potentially be confused. Not to mention Anglophones from other countries. This is why we must make sure that in this article we put the statement concerning 'Québec as a nation' in the context of the confusion around the use of the word in English. While it is undeniable that Québécois form a nation (people who identify primarily or in part with Québec), it is difficult to bring this out in an article when so many people have differing views on the use of the word Québécois in English. This being said I'm fairly sure that Harper's motion was deliberately worded in a confusing way in English for political reasons. Basser g 16:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Harper did it deliberately for sure. In the past, he supported the partition of Quebec along ethnic lines and nothing indicates that he changed his opinion on this. -- Mathieugp 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Harper's motion is deliberately confusing. The article "Québécois" refering to the Québécois nation is very confusing too and should be deleted. According to experts, Quebec is a nation, not "Quebecois", that is why i'm asking since 1 month to remove "Quebecois nation" with "Quebec is a nation". It is more logical. Now, the Quebeckers are the individuals that speak french (as a first, second, third or nth language), recognize theirselves as Quebeckers and that have an attachment to the territory of quebec wich is the Province. For the anglophones living in Quebec, they decide if they are Quebeckers or not. They could be Canadians AND Quebeckers, that is possible. A francophone in Quebec could be Canadian, it is his choice. Pgsylv 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pgsylv I do not quite understand what speaking French has to do with being Québécois, if Québec truly aspires to be a civic nation then whether one speaks French, Slovak, Zulu, or English should not matter. For example technically you do not need to be able to speak English to be an American citizen although it definitely helps. It is statements like that which make the term Québécois confusing to the average Canadian anglophone. Is their both an ethno-linguistic and civic character to the adjective Québécois? Should there be ethno-linguistic connotations or should the adjective be purely civic? These are questions that can be asked about most national adjectives, but I think they are important questions nonetheless. Basser g 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nation is: one territory, one language, one recognition. It's the definition. And it is civic. It's not even nevessary to be born here or to have french as a first language, you just have to know french (and recognize yourself as a Quebecker, it is YOUR choice). How could a community comunicate if everybody speaks one different language? The nation of Canada is the nation speaking english. We have no links with it. Look at Canadian cinema. What is that? There is Quebecker cinema (french) and Canadian cinema (english). Quebecker music and Canadian music (Celine Dion is Canadian/American, by the way). Arcade Fire is Canadian music while Galaxie 500 is Quebecker music. You can't deny it. Canada is composed of two solitiudes: Quebec and Canada. We don't understand each other. That's why some people in here think we should separate. I would just write down to the Constitution that Quebec is a nation. But obviously, if we cannot write it down in here because we offense some people in the west of Canada, it will be pretty hard to write it in the Constitution. Pgsylv 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is non-logical statements like yours that create confusion. Nobody said one has to be speaking French natively to be a Quebecer. One can speak Zulu, German, or Chinese. However, if these speakers of minority languages are citizens, are members of a political community that exists in the real physical world of humans and not only in the abstraction of the law, they need to communicate when they interact. For the formal communication among members of the multilingual political community of Quebecers, for those cases when francophones meet non-francophones in public institutions, which language will be spoken and written? Are native French speakers to become bilingual French-German so that the German speaking minority might remain mostly unilingual since everyone around them understand them when they speak? That is of course non-sense and the German community never asked for that. In Canada outside Quebec, English is the uncontested common language, used among citizens day-to-day when they are involved in activities that are not peculiar to a given community but common to all. If English also plays that role in Quebec, where it is a minority language, we are effectively preventing the majority of Quebecers from ever speaking their language publicly anywhere on the Earth. An injustice like that is inconceivable and unacceptable to most of us today, yet that was the official status quo before French was made the sole official language of Quebec in 1974 and it was the practical status quo before 1977 when Quebecers gave themselves a public policy to promote the use of French as the common language. To say that Quebecers are a French-speaking people, that they speak it as a first, second or third or nth language has everything to do with creating a common and civic national identity. Ethnic nationalism would be to say that no matter how long you or your parents or grand parents have resided in Quebec, no matter your degree of fluency in Quebec French, no matter the level of attachment you feel toward this place and this people, you can only be a full citizen of Quebec if you are connected to French Quebecers by ancestry. Naturally, if there had never been any attempt at anglicizing the whole of Quebec society, if the majority had never been forcibly made to be a minority group in the body of another nation, then most likely there would never have been a need to make a statement about what language is common to Quebecers. But it did, and a small minority of Quebecers (not all anglophones of course, most have a high sense of morality) still think it is acceptable that the common language of Quebecers be that of Canadians. They usually call this "bilingualism", a word more confusing than Québécois will ever be. -- Mathieugp 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page isn't for spouting your personal political opinions. Would you please stick to the subject at hand. --Soulscanner 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the common public language of Québec should be French. I think that is undeniable, clearly French is the language of the majority, just because the ROC is majority English doesn't mean that Québec should use English as their lingua franca. At the same time it is important to recognize a linguistic minority's rights to access to services in their own language. This is something that I think both the government of Canada, and the government of Québec could improve on. Anyways, I was only trying to determine what your opinions were on who was a Quebecer. I was trying to see if your views included or excluded anglophones and allophones. Civic nationalism is ok, but ethnic nationalism is too exclusive for my tastes. Thanks for clarifying. By the way bilingualism never hurt anyone, the only problem is that in Québec and the ROC some anglophones have been lazy about it assuming (in some cases arrogantly) that "all French speak English anyways.." In my view this assumption is unacceptable (not to mention false), and bilingualism is just another way to improve yourself anyways. In other words, I think both communities have a responsibility to themselves and others to learn the language of the majority/minority. It can't hurt anyways. Basser g 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"all French speak English anyways.." indeed. Anglophones cannot be individually blamed for taking the shortest path to communicating with their co-citizens. The stupid ones are francophones who switch to English right away the minute they hear an English accent but that behaviour is a social heritage of the past when French was nothing but a translation language rapidly deteriorating. The English-French bilingualism of institutions, both public and private, in Montreal is the consequence of Quebec being inside Canada and being subjected to policies adopted in Ottawa. The official bilingualism policy of Ottawa promotes the continuation of this state of affairs while that of Quebec fights it with insufficient means. On November 5, 1982, René Lévesque wrote to Eric Maldoff, lawyer and President of Alliance Quebec:

It is important that the French visage of Québec be before all else French, if only not to resurrect, to the eyes of newcomers, the ambiguity on the character of our society which prevailed before, ambiguity which has given us heart-rending crisis.

It its own way indeed, each bilingual sign says to the immigrant: "There are two languages here, English and French; one chooses the one he wants." It says to the English speaker: "No need to learn French, everything is translated." It is not the message we want to give. It appears vital to us that all be conscious of the French character of our society. However, apart from the exterior signage, this character is not always obvious.

[...] According to us, a too large opening to the usage of English beside French in outside signage would, considering the North-American context, quickly lead to generalized bilingualism in this field, at least in the center of Montreal, that is to say where the majority of our new citizens settle. It is therefore prudence and not, as it was too easily claimed, a spirit of revenge, which led us to adopt, for outside signage, the rule of the exclusive use of French.

Sovereignists were not are still are not at war against individual multilingualism: Lévesque spoke perfect English, Parizeau lived in London, UK for years, Landry spoken English and Spanish. They are not at war against Anglo-Quebecers who by themselves are only 8% of the total population. The problem they are trying to solve is one which we Quebecers are all responsible for recreating everyday for a lack of a clear social contract among ourselves. The sovereignists do not believe the reform of Canada possible because the interests of most Canadians are incompatible with that of most Quebecers. Secession on friendly terms is the best if not the only real solution to a problem older than confederation: the annexation of Lower Canada with Upper Canada which authorized a majority other than that of Lower Canada itself to make the law on the territory of Lower Canada. The kind of "federalism" that came after only delayed the inevitable deadlock between a smaller nation inside a bigger one. Yet "federalism", absolutely speaking, is not a bad idea and that is why many Quebecers still waste their time and energy hoping the rest of Canada will discover the nature of the problem and fix it. -- Mathieugp 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bilinguism is a total failure. When you get out of Quebec, no one speaks french. It is stupid to ask for everybody in Canada to speak French and English. Now, one problem is that a lot of Anglophones in Quebec are complaining for nothing. Everywhere in Montreal you could find service in english. But you can't find french everywhere in the city. That is sad, because the anglos are just 8% of the population. Now, Quebeckers are the people recognizing as Quebeckers. I don't mind sharring the territory with people calling themselves Canadians since we are in the same country. Do you see what I mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgsylv (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Really?? Tell that to Franco-Ontarians....Franco-Albertans...even Franco-Newfoundlanders! Oh, should I mention Acadia as well? How about the fact that New Brunswick is officially a bilingual province. You argue facts, but you should look at reality. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp: You are correct in saying that the francophones who instantly switch to English upon the detection of an English accent are not doing anglophones in or outside of Québec any favours. I know this from experience as I live in Québec and am learning French as my second language, it is much more difficult to learn French if each time you have the opportunity to speak it you end up speaking in English (I am not using this as an excuse). Not to mention they are not doing themselves any favours in solidifying French as the public language of Québec. By the way I always thought that francophones often switched to English because they either wanted to practice their English themselves, wanted to appear considerate, or didn't want to/have time to listen to an anglophone struggle his/her way through ordering a 'hamburgeois'.  :)

Yes, the francophone majority of Quebec, because it is a largely bilingual minority in Canada does not behave like a normal majority group. When I was in school we had half our teachers telling us how important it was to master French and speak it freely to everyone to keep it alive in all sectors of social life and the other half telling us that to get the high paying jobs one is greatly advantaged when he or she speaks English. Native or adoptive francophones are numerous not to understand the proactive role they are supposed to be playing in Montreal, especially in the workplace, if they really wish for French to play the role English plays in Toronto in creating a super-community united by a common language above and beyond individuals' ethnic origins and mother tongues. Nothing is more powerful than the argument which says: "you won't get a job if you cannot speak English". Many francophones do not want to engage in the collective struggle for French in Quebec and as employees surrender to employers' excessive demands for bilingualism everywhere for everything and anything. I am, like many, guilty of not doing what I am preaching because I too must pay the rent and learning English after all is nothing but another skill to my resume. The inequality between employees and employers, resulting from the stupidly aggressive and inefficient economic system that is most dominant in the world, is unfortunately not going to be fixed by the Charter of the French language or any other provincial law. It is interesting to read what Ghandi who wrote in 1908 in the chapter on Education of his Hind Swaraj:

"It is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, tyranny, etc., have increased; English-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror into the people. Now, if we are doing anything for the people at all, we are paying only a portion of the debt due to them.

Is it not a painful thing that, if I want to go to a court of justice, I must employ the English language as a medium, that when I become a barrister, I may not speak my mother tongue and that someone else should have to translate to me from my own language? Is not this absolutely absurd? Is it not a sign of slavery? Am I to blame the English for it or myself? It is we, the English-knowing Indians, that have enslaved India. The curse of the nation will rest not upon the English but upon us."

Surely Ghandi would turn in his grave learning of the continued dominance of English in India so long after the formal political independence of the Indian subcontinent. But of course he and others did not foresee the disaster of Corporate Globalization back then ;-). -- Mathieugp 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As for exclusivity of outside signage in French, I do not necessarily agree that signage should be solely in French (although I understand your concerns), but I definitely think that outside signage should always have French on it, with the possible additions of other languages. I am aware that the policy of French language only signage was not created out of revenge.

As for the sovereignty issue, it seems you have it as your preferred option which is reasonable enough and understandable, and I don't fault you for it despite my disagreement. I know that the Québécois are a nation, however I sincerely hope that the ROC and Québec can, in the future reconcile grievances and build a bi-national country that all can be happy with (hopefully more than bi-national due to First Nations, Inuit etc). I acknowledge that given current somewhat prevailing opinions in Western Canada, and many Ontarian's growing disdain for sovereigntist demands make this fairly unlikely. But I still hope that it could happen because unfortunately most in the ROC would in all likelihood become irrationally angry at an independent Québec and therefore I don't see how secession on friendly terms would be possible. Furthermore I prefer to believe that different people can work at their differences and live on good terms with eachother in one country. Finally, although I would be unhappy that Canada could not fix the problems that plague the federation I would be one to wish Québec well, in fact it is likely that I would still be living in Québec at that time as a dual citizen of my two nations. -- Basser g 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pgsylv: Bilingualism is not a total failure, but I agree that not enough people in the ROC speak French, and I am definitely an advocate of better French language education, currently it is far from enough. And yes obviously it is pathetic that you cannot be served in French in some areas of Montreal, but the only way this can change is for the Anglo-Montrealers to become bilingual... What IS stupid is to ask some people to speak French and English, but to tell others not to. The public language of Québec may be French (and English in ROC) but Quebecers should also speak English (and ROC- French). Everyone in Canada who is capable should do their best to learn and become fluent in French and English whether or not Québec is an independent country or not this still applies. Bilingualism may not be working right now on an individual basis, but that does not make it an inherently wrong idea, Quebecers will still be largely French speaking whether they also speak English or not, and Anglo-Canadians will still be largely English speaking whether or not they also speak French. By the way people do speak French outside of Québec, just not very many. Don't make broad statements, they tend to be inaccurate. -- Basser g 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should French be forced upon people in the ROC? Quebecers never asked for that. Ontario and the States bordering Quebec could definitely speak French as a second language better and more often, to facilitate mutual understanding, but official bilingualism coast-to-coast, whatever the form and the means employed, is absolute non-sense. It is neither desirable nor feasible to bilingualise the ROC. Unless we manage to quadruple the population of Quebec overnight, mass emigrate all over in the other provinces, gain ownership of a proportional share of the capital, most Canadians are unlikely to ever see the need to master French.

A free people speaks essentially its own language at home and others when traveling. English speaking peoples are about the only truly free peoples at home and have the questionable luxury to also be at home in other peoples' countries. That is the state of language inequality world wide right now. A very interesting book on how English came to be on top is Linguistic imperialism by Robert Phillipson, Oxford University Press, 1992. -- Mathieugp 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am not a big fan of the 'big business speaks English' nature of globalization either. Well I guess I'm not really a big fan of big business or globalization in general. And unfortunately you are right that the Charter of the French language cannot really do anything about English being required in business. What it can do however is make French an additional requirement in Québec, which was definitely necessary to break the economic domination of Anglo-Québecers. It is interesting that you brought up Gandhi, I like what he has to say on this issue, I too am certain that he would be turning in his grave. But in India I think that using English may be more rationale then in Québec in the sense that the native majority language (Hindi) would not be imposed upon speakers of the numerous large minority languages of India (Tamil, Gujarati, Urdu etc). It may be better for India to nationally utilize a completely foreign language (English) then to promote the dominance of one local ethnic group over all the others. Nonetheless it is still disturbing that the former language of the colonizers is the predominant official language of a free India. Basser g 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the commonly used rationale indeed, but Ghandi did not think English qualified as a common language for India. His opinion on this can be read here. Using English or French or any other powerful European language as a neutral language is fundamentally an error, because English and French are not empty languages: they are not just instruments. They come with a cultural heritage, a way of thinking, a philosophy etc that is still alive and active.

As for French becoming required in addition to English in the Montreal workplaces, this is sort of the current situation as French-English bilinguals have replaced the former unilingual English bosses at top of the pyramid and it is far from being acceptable. The system is unchanged, only the bilingual francophones or anglophones at the top are the ones pushing English all the way down. English should be required only for certain obvious cases. With political sovereignty, Quebec would not be able to completely knock down the international influence of English, but it would be free to make French the official language of the country as well as to regulate questions of trade, the rights of consumers and workers with much greater impact. -- Mathieugp 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your POV on language laws is interesting but beside the point. Please stick to the topic at hand. --Soulscanner 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree colonial languages are not empty languages and therefore come with associated cultural baggage, English being no exception, and in no way do I think that Indians should have English as their official language. However I do think that for India it might be preferable that a foreign language be the primary lingua franca rather than the language of the ethnic pluralty for the purposes of ethnic relations. It may, in India's case be the lesser of two evils.

I understand the reasoning. Nevertheless, Hindi, written in different scripts, was the lesser of two evils. Right now, English and Hindi at the federal level and States being free to implement their own language policies has a lot of good in it.

As for bilingualism in the ROC I realize that it is not particularly feasible to expect 100% of citizens to become bilingual, but institutional bilingualism and maybe 25%-30% bilingual in the West and 50-60% in the East is not too much to expect with the proper programs. To be honest though I am less concerned with the Western provinces becoming bilingual considering that their citizens rarely even encounter the opportunity to speak French (therefore making it quite difficult to even facilitate bilingualism). However the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and perhaps Manitoba should become bilingual due to their proximity with Québec and their francophone minorities whom they have an obligation to. I do not really believe that the ROC should be 'forced' to learn French, but I do think it would be better if people chose to. Even if only for the reason that learning foreign languages is an excellent way to improve yourself.

If I'm not mistaken French is the only official language of Québec and currently more immigrants are assimilating as francophones then anglophones, I fail to see what further good an independent Québec could do for the case of French at work? Unfortunately all that non-English speaking societies can expect right now in business is that they be able to speak their own language at work amongst themselves and at home because the reality is that English is the language of big business for good or for bad. Thankfully Québec had the guts to create legislation requiring the use of French in the workplace otherwise the pattern of domination by anglophones would only have worsened. I think I will read that book you linked, it looks interesting. 69.157.177.92 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry above comment was me. Basser g 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No. At the present, language shifts are 50% 50% between French and English. You can read this and that for the details. Quebec needs ~ 80% of shifts towards French to maintain the relative size of the francophone community (as language of use not native language). In the ROC, 99% of shifts go to English. Independence essentially means that the constitution of Canada and the policies of the federal State do not apply to us. There will no longer be a permanent battle of nationalisms, of identities, of languages of ideologies between two States. Quebecers will stop sending half of their tax money to a State that says A and the other half to a State that says non-A. Our current provincial laws will stop being challenged by partisan lawyers in courts were judges are non-elected. When they will be challenged, it will be because they are unconstitutional in principle not because they go against the opinion of the majority of Canada. The list of advantages is endless from where we stand. -- Mathieugp 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not represent original research on your personal website as an authoritative source on Wikipedia. It is not honest, and not what these talk pages are for. We are attempting to come to a consensus about how to create a NPOV article, and whether putting a reference to Harper's motion in the lead compromises NPOV policies. --Soulscanner 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research? Articles published in 2003 and 2005 in Le Devoir by one of the leading researchers on language shifts? The only thing original is the English translation. The rest of the site is also mostly translations. As a Quebecer, you should be happy to be given the opportunity of catching up on reading your national history in a non-official language. Very few minorities have that privilege. -- Mathieugp 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own translations posted on a personal website are indeed original research. You may link to the original French articles, or you may link to a published translation. Your own translations to not qualify as a reference. --Soulscanner 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RS says that independant translations are preferable, but doesn't say anything about self-made translations being WP:OR, although Mathieugp's translation should link back to the original articles, and in that context, are absolutely not OR (as the exactitude of the translation can be verified independantly).--Ramdrake 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we put back "Quebec" instead of "Quebecois" ? Pgsylv 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what the motion says? --Soulscanner 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply state the current situation:

"It has been established by the academic community (*) that Quebec is a nation and a province within a united Canada, however the existence of the Quebec nation has not yet been unambiguously recognized by the government of Canada (**).

(*)supporting references (pgsylv, etc.) (**)reference Harper's motion, news articles if deemed appropriate

This is phrased such that 'Quebec nation' can be used to link to a comprehensive discussion of the issue, either later on the page or on another page. The extent to which this point has been dissected on this talk page demonstrates its relevance to the citizens of Quebec - for every opponent of the issue, there will always be a supporter. This warrants mention of the issue at the beginning of the article. Issues of identity are equally important as traditional geographic, cultural, and historical facts when describing a region of the world. After all, the history of a region not only affects, but is affected by the people living there.

I agree with Pgsylv that it is a shame that there is still so much opposition that it cannot be written as simply as 'Quebec is a nation and a province', but it is certainly a more accurate reflection of the political climate in Canada right now to admit that there is a debate over the issue. It is a more powerful statement when written in context - rather than give the impression that all is well, and Quebeckers feel satisfied with their present treatment within Canada (as Pgsylv's statement does), the extrapolated version implies the discontent that Mathieugp has detailed. This does not imply that Quebeckers are unified in this belief, only that some feel unsatisfied with their treatment by the Canadian government. Maksim2007 00:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Do you believe that putting Harper's motion in the lead paragraph is POV? --Soulscanner 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Although it is historically relevant, Harper's motion reflects a point of view (that of his party). It does not determine whether Quebec is or is not a nation. (Just as the 19th amendment to the US constitution did not change the fact that women and men are fundamentally equal.) Quebec is fundamentally a nation, but it is not recognized as one by the government of Canada nor many Canadian citizens.

In order to link to a more comprehensive discussion of Harper's motion, the sentence may be written as:

"Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk]) is a part of Canada. It has been established by the academic community (*) that Quebec is a nation and a province within a united Canada. Recently, the existence of the Quebec nation was ambiguously acknowledged by the government of Canada in Stephen Harper's 2006 motion(**)."

(*)supporting references (pgsylv, etc.)

(**)reference Harper's motion, news articles if deemed appropriate

This allows 'Stephen Harper's 2006 motion' to link to a discussion of what he may have meant. The word 'recently' is included so as not to give undue weight to the motion. This is not the only historically relevant event that pertains to the issue, only the most recent. Maksim2007 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this paragraph. As long as the article talks about "Quebec" as a nation. "Quebecois" was used for a political purpose and is amibiguous for obvious reasons. Pgsylv 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also support such a statement.--Ramdrake 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph demonstrably false untrue. There is no agreement among any "academic community" that Quebec is a nation; it is a contentiously debated issue, and academic debate tends to mirror the political divisions in Canada. There are some academics that support it, others who are against it, and others who are indifferent to it as the various references show. Frankly, academics do not even agree on the definition of the word "nation". The statement that Quebec is a nation is advanced by Quebec nationalists (including nationalist academics, especially Quebec sovereignists) to bolster their claims to secede from Canada. It is inherently POV issue that is directly linked to Quebec's constitutional status with Canada. It is clear from this page that it is a politically charged issue. Anyone can see that just by reading this discussion page. That is why this issue (if mentioned at all) needs to be discussed within the context of Quebec nationalism and soveriegnty, not with one sentence in the lead. If it is to dealt with in a non-POV, it must offer a review of the different academic and political perspectives on this issue. Choosing one and ignoring the others is using Wikiedia to push ones own POV. That is unnacceptable. --Soulscanner 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Once and for all, please take note that not all people who consider Quebec as a nation are sovereignists. I can think of at least Robert Bourassa and Jean Charest, who, while being stauch federalists, did/do consider Quebec as a nation (if you'll remember the Meech Lake era and the more recent proclamation by Quebec's National Assembly). So, restricting this to just being a consequence of the sovereignty movement is spinning a very definite POV.--Ramdrake 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself. Quebec Nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation. Calling Quebec a nation pushes a nationalist POV. Non-Quebec nationalists (i.e. Western Canadian Conservatives; Trudeau Liberals; Neo-Consevatives; and many ordinary Canadians) do not. This includes 20% of Quebecers and most of English Canadians. Seperatists, who are unanimous on Quebec being a nation, want it on the political agenda to sew divisons among their ferderalist opponents, who disagree on this. That is why they wish to make the issue more important than it is. Quebec nationalists who are Federalists (like Jean Chaerst) just want to get the issue off the agenda by recognizing it so it doesn't divide their parties. --Soulscanner 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very odd considering that you introduced mention of the Harper motion to replace the statement that Quebec is a nation. You even claimed before that there was a consensus on this. Any justification for changing your mind? --Soulscanner 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was basing my recommendation on the observation by several editors that the recognition of Quebec as a nation went to its people (a nation is primarily a population, although the land where this population resides can also be called a nation by extension). And yes, there was a consensus on this... until you objected. Now, there seems to be another consensus forming, to which I also note you object. Nevertheless, I believe it is important that the intro note that Quebec (in the extended sense, i.e. its people) forms a nation within Canada; although it is right to note that there's a controversy surronding this, I think it isn't right to burden the intro with a statement that tries to say "but nobody's sure exactly what it means". I think it's quite clear that most Quebecers do consider themselves as a nation, and that this notion transcends political affiliations at least in Quebec. --Ramdrake 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So, by your definition, if Quebec anglophones declared themselves a nation, they would be, right? Frankly, your definition is your POV. There are academics that agree with it, and others that don't. As I pointed out, there are many other maintream definitions of the Quebecois nation, and I've provided the references for them.

You are seriously misrepresenting the facts by saying that I'm the only one opposed to making sweeping statements about Quebecois nationhood. There were 3 people who discussed this for less than a week that agreed on inserting mention of the "Quebec nation" after the article had been here for years and edited by scores without making mention of it. Most people who have commented here have been against making sweeping declarations of Quebec being a nation. Three people pushing a Quebec nationalist POV does not constitute a consensus. If you seriously think that the 10-20 editors involved in this discussion will agree to this, feel free to conduct a poll; I'll tell you now that you are wasting your time. But wait more than two days this time so that all the editors have a chance to comment. --Soulscanner 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so let's put it this way. Pgsylv 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the statement should stay as is, in the Quebec as a Nation part of the history section. CWPappas 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps?

Can we put some more maps on the page? The only map is in the infobox, and it only shows the location of Quebec. Sseballos 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss Quebec politics

Most of the above paragraph goes off on all sorts of issues about language and Quebec politics. This discussion is about whether to include mention of Harper's Quebecois nation motion in the lead. Please stick to that. It is about writing a NPOV article. --Soulscanner 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk]) is a part of Canada. Although its status is contentious, there is a consensus among several esteemed academics (*) that Quebec is a nation and a province within a united Canada. Quebec is universally regarded as a province of Canada by the Canadian government, and the existence of a "Quebecois Nation" has been formally recognized."

It should be referenced as previously indicated, and now "Quebecois Nation" will be used to link to a thorough discussion of Harper's motion, which Soulscanner has already made considerable progress on.

This style of introduction hints at the frustration that exists between Quebeckers and the Canadian government without resorting to any detailed discussion (which would certainly be out of place in an introduction). My aim is to state the facts, and you are welcome to help tweak the introduction so that it does so. It is necessary to find a compromise in wording that includes the fact that Quebec is a nation, and the fact that it is a province. You are correct in pointing out the presence of opposing points of view to the statement, "Quebec is a nation", but that is not sufficient grounds for ignoring the valid references that support the fact. There are also plenty of creationist scientists in existence... I do not think that there is anything wrong with admitting that the relationship between Quebeckers and the Canadian government is not completely (or even remotely?) harmonious at the present time.

I believe that Ignatieff also supported recognition of Quebec as a nation. Maksim2007 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I have written. I am not saying that the national debate in Canada about the status of the Quebecois people and the province of Quebec be ignored. I'm saying a) that it needs to be presented as a political debate, and that opposing political oppinions should be clearly identified as having equal validity and b) it is inappropriate to start off an article on a geographical entity by going into its internal politics in the lead paragraph as it puts undue emphasis on this highly politicized debate. This is not the way it is done on Wikipedia. There is much more to Quebec than politics. If the Canadian debate on the status of Quebec and the Quebecois is to be included in the lead, it should be done on a paragraph that summarizes the Quebec sovereignty debate, mentioning more important events such as the Quiet Revolution, the two sovereignty referenda, the Canada Act of 1982, and the Meech Lake Accord, and the Clarity Act. These events were much more significant and important in defining the legal status of Quebec than any motion by any particular political group.

It is not contentious that Quebec is a province. It is a fact. It is extremely contentious that the Province of Quebec is a nation. Presenting "Quebec is a nation" pushes the the POV of one political group. That is unnacceptable. Can we agree on that?

Frankly, proposing that "Quebec is a province in Canada" be removed from the lead smacks of pushing a separatist agenda. It is somewhat laughable that anyone would think this is not pushing POV. It should not even be discussed. --Soulscanner 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying a) that it needs to be presented as a political debate, and that opposing political oppinions should be clearly identified as having equal validity

"Quebec is a nation" should not be presented as a political debate, although the political debate over the statement deserves mention. There is no process by which ideas become facts based on the actions of governing bodies. An example of this was given earlier (women's right to vote). The political debate over Quebec nationhood doesn't negate the fact that Quebec is a nation. Given the penchant of politicians for bias, Wikipedia cannot base its content on the points of view of governments! Conflict among citizens and their governments should not be grounds for suppressing facts.

and b) it is inappropriate to start off an article on a geographical entity by going into its internal politics in the lead paragraph as it puts undue emphasis on this highly politicized debate.

"Quebec is a nation" is important enough to be stated in the opening paragraph. When did this become a uniquely geographical article? The ongoing struggle between the federal government and Quebeckers is well known. Because of this struggle, as a compromise to those who feel that the political debate over the statement detracts from its truth, we all agree that rather than simply state "Quebec is a nation", it can be written with a disclaimer (it is contentious... according to several esteemed academics...). You are still welcome to adjust the wording if you feel it is biased.

Presenting "Quebec is a nation" pushes the the POV of one political group.

It is possible to say, "Quebec is a nation" without having a separatist agenda. The examples that were given of federalist political figures who support the statement prove this to be true. Michael Ignatieff even supports stating that Quebec is a nation in the Constitution of Canada. Pushing the idea that Quebec is a nation is clearly not the point of view of "one political group".

...These events were much more significant and important in defining the legal status of Quebec than any motion by any particular political group.

The point that is being emphasized is: "Quebec is a nation", not Stephen Harper's motion. The statement "Quebec is a nation" is not fundamentally affected by Stephen Harper's motion, it is only historically affected by it. The statement is true because of the definition of a nation, which precedes any public recognition given to the fact. Wikipedia endeavours to present facts, not popular opinion.Maksim2007 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, boldly saying that "Quebec is a nation" does not make it a fact. As I have been repeating again and again (and which everyone continues to ignore), academics, politicians, legal scholars and the people themselves are divided not only on whether Quebec is a nation, but also among those that do, on what it means to be a nation and whether it is important. In other words, there is no definitive source for establishing a fact that Quebec is a nation, and there is no definitive source that says that it is important enough to put in the leading sentence of an article. There are good arguments made by respected academics, political leaders, legal scholars, and ordinary people that argue for an against the proposition, offering differing definitions based mostly on political ideology.

There is no unambiguous definition of nation other than that of an independent country. In wikipedia, such entities are refered to as countries. These are recognized as nations by the United Nations and other independent countries. Quebec does not qualify. By that standard, Quebec is a province in Canada just like Ontario, as Texas is a State in the United States, or as the Gujarat is a State in India. It is not a nation in that sense.

Other than that, the definition of the word of nation gets ambiguous. You can pretty much pick and choose your definition of nation to suit your political convenience from the many definitions in dictionaries and those scores of publications by political scientists and political philosphers, all of whom have their own political biases see here for one example. A debate on this here would be too long-winded and resolve nothing, so I encourage you to avoid it. Check five dictionaries, and you'll get five different definitions (at least), in English or in French.

In Canada, you will note that French Canadians, Acadians, First nations, Quebecois are all referred to as nations by some according to various definitions. The idea that the Province of Quebec is a nation is more contentious, as it extends the idea of a more or less homogeneous people defined by a shared ethnicity (i.e. language, religion, and historical background) to an entire area. The idea of Quebec as a nation is therefore more contentious among scholars, politicians, and the people, and especially among the distinct minorities who live there. For every opinion and definition you find that supports Quebec as a nation, I can find an equally valid source that negates and another that minimizes its importance. I don't want to get into that kind of tit for tat debate, so I suggest we accept the references already given as evidence of this. Keep in mind that this isn't about arguing our own POV's on this issue, but documenting whether this idea is recognized not only by academics, but in colloquial speech and common usage, where words ultimately derive their meaning, and in legal recognition, from which the academic idea of (legal scholarship and constitutional have a place in the debate as well).

Finally, I said that "Quebec is a nation" is a POV pushed by Quebec nationalists, who are both federalists and sovereignists. Federalists can be Quebec nationalists like Jean Charest, or, they can be decidedly opposed to nationalism as an ideology in itself, like Pierre Trudeau.

I encourage you to accept that even though you may not like it, there are no authoritative sources (academic or otherwise) that can establish that "Quebec is a nation". Stating it as fact pushes the academic, political, and ideological point of view of those who promote the idea, and ignores the equally valid opinions of those who do not or discount its importance. Anything based on complex issues of identity can ever be as cut and dry as that. --Soulscanner 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, boldly saying that "Quebec is a nation" does not make it a fact. As I have been repeating again and again (and which everyone continues to ignore), academics, politicians, legal scholars and the people themselves are divided not only on whether Quebec is a nation, but also among those that do, on what it means to be a nation and whether it is important. In other words, there is no definitive source for establishing a fact that Quebec is a nation, and there is no definitive source that says that it is important enough to put in the leading sentence of an article. There are good arguments made by respected academics, political leaders, legal scholars, and ordinary people that argue for an against the proposition, offering differing definitions based mostly on political ideology.

That is not accurate. The debates are not on the existence of the nation, this is the initial premise which is not contested by Quebec academics. It is obvious that Quebec is not a sovereign Nation-State. Nobody denies that. It is equally obvious that Quebec has the set of institutions characteristics of contemporary nations. The political institutions of that nation are supported by the provincial state. Those of Canada are supported by the federal state. The fathers of "confederation" did not wait the 1931 Treaty of Westminster to speak of a "New Nationality". John A. MacDonald did not wait formal political independence to promote a "National Policy". -- Mathieugp 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no unambiguous definition of nation other than that of an independent country. In Wikipedia, such entities are referred to as countries. These are recognized as nations by the United Nations and other independent countries. Quebec does not qualify. By that standard, Quebec is a province in Canada just like Ontario, as Texas is a State in the United States, or as the Gujarat is a State in India. It is not a nation in that sense.

And that is not contested as well. But Ontario does not have a distinct set of national institutions and the Ontarian people did not inherit a national consciousness from a period of time predating confederation, unlike Quebec. -- Mathieugp 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, the definition of the word of nation gets ambiguous. You can pretty much pick and choose your definition of nation to suit your political convenience from the many definitions in dictionaries and those scores of publications by political scientists and political philosphers, all of whom have their own political biases see here for one example. A debate on this here would be too long-winded and resolve nothing, so I encourage you to avoid it. Check five dictionaries, and you'll get five different definitions (at least), in English or in French.

This is a flawed argument as from it would follow that Wikipedia could not have a single article on any entity described as a "nation", using any of the possible definitions of this word. If you fear people will think Quebec is a sovereign Nation-State, then it can be explicitly mentioned it is not. -- Mathieugp 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, you will note that French Canadians, Acadians, First nations, Quebecois are all referred to as nations by some according to various definitions. The idea that the Province of Quebec is a nation is more contentious, as it extends the idea of a more or less homogeneous people defined by a shared ethnicity (i.e. language, religion, and historical background) to an entire area. The idea of Quebec as a nation is therefore more contentious among scholars, politicians, and the people, and especially among the distinct minorities who live there. For every opinion and definition you find that supports Quebec as a nation, I can find an equally valid source that negates and another that minimizes its importance. I don't want to get into that kind of tit for tat debate, so I suggest we accept the references already given as evidence of this. Keep in mind that this isn't about arguing our own POV's on this issue, but documenting whether this idea is recognized not only by academics, but in colloquial speech and common usage, where words ultimately derive their meaning, and in legal recognition, from which the academic idea of (legal scholarship and constitutional have a place in the debate as well).

The strictly ethnic definitions are as contentious as the strictly political ones you will note. That argument lead nowhere. What sources do you have do show that are not journalistic and discredited from the start? -- Mathieugp 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I said that "Quebec is a nation" is a POV pushed by Quebec nationalists, who are both federalists and sovereignists. Federalists can be Quebec nationalists like Jean Charest, or, they can be decidedly opposed to nationalism as an ideology in itself, like Pierre Trudeau.

And the National Assembly is standing there testifying where the consensus is since at least 1968. -- Mathieugp 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to accept that even though you may not like it, there are no authoritative sources (academic or otherwise) that can establish that "Quebec is a nation". Stating it as fact pushes the academic, political, and ideological point of view of those who promote the idea, and ignores the equally valid opinions of those who do not or discount its importance. Anything based on complex issues of identity can ever be as cut and dry as that. --Soulscanner 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that "Quebec is not a nation" pushes the point of view of those who oppose the consensus of men and women who consider facts more important than Canadian National Unity. There is no way around those simple facts:

- The National Assembly of Quebec thinks Quebecers are a nation and that there is no stopping the financing of Quebec's core national institutions no matter the opinion of the rest of Canada on the subject.

- Quebec has a National Assembly, A Civil Code, a National Library and Archives, a National Police School, a National Holiday, a National Order, a National Flag and other such symbols, a National Research Institute, a national culture (literature, cinema, theatre, radio, tv you name it). We are missing a few like a National Hockey Team, but you might want to sign the petition asking for one here: http://www.equipequebec.net/ (Thank you Scotland for making us realize we did not need to wait independence to have our own national teams.)

- In the summer of 1999, twelve Quebec intellectuals, including people as politically opposed as philosophers Charles Taylor and Serge Cantin, participated to a reflexion entitled Penser la nation québécoise ("Thinking the Quebec nation"). Twelve articles, one per week every Saturday. There is no doubt that the exact definition of the "Quebec nation" differed in the minds of all these individuals (cultural, socio-political, civic, all of the above), but there was nothing controversial about writing on an entity it was implied existed in the real world. (The twelve texts can be read here: http://web.archive.org/web/19991013053708/http://ledevoir.com/ago/nation.html) -- Mathieugp 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You have mistranslated Penser la nation québécoise. It translates directly to "Thinking of the Quebecer nation." As well, all of the national departments and governmental bureaus refer to the cultural nation of Quebecers as a whole, not of the geographical identity of Quebec. The fact that they are provincial government entities is not justification of "Quebec is a nation." Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. This would indeed be the exact transliteration. But "Quebecer" is not used as an adjective in English. Don't ask me why. I have seen "Quebecian" but it is extremely colloquial.

You should learn English somewhere other than Montreal (take that as a joke, not an insult). I've heard Quebecer used hundreds of times as an adjective, and I use it myself (when I am speaking in English). Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Type "Quebecer culture" or "New Zealander culture" or "New Yorker culture" in Google and you will see that is not common to use these demonyms as adjectives. It has to do with their -er ending. I did not invent this. For these words ending in -er, the usage is to go "Quebec culture", "New Zealand culture" or "New York culture". -- Mathieugp 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. These institutions are those of all Quebecers and by extension of Quebec (or vice-versa). The fact that they are supported by a provincial state is as significant as the fact that those of Canada are supported by a federal state. -- Mathieugp 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that they are symbolic of the cultural nation of the people, not a political nation of the region. The province of Quebec is not a nation; the culture of Quebecois is a nation. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making a distinction between Quebecer and Quebecois that cannot exist in the French language where Québécois is the only word. If you mean to say that the Quebec flag, the National Assembly of Quebec are only the institutions of French Quebecers, think again. We are all sending taxes to this provincial state and the flag of Quebec is the national flag of all Quebecers in fact and in law no matter what individually some may think of it. -- Mathieugp 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian Federal system has given certain jurisdictions to the provinces, of which all of the points you brought up fall into. Their titles, the National this and that, are purely symbolic. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is the same for the federal institutions. Must we conclude from this that Canada is not a political nation then? that the institutions are only federal? Of course not. what matters is their nature, their vocation, their purpose. In both cases, it was the intent of the legislator to have them be the institutions of a national community. -- Mathieugp 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point. My argument is that the symbolic usage of nation in this case does not transfer to a political usage. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, Le Devoir has proven time and time again that it is a nationalist paper (at times even sovereignist), and it is only one example of a POINT OF VIEW. The articles written by these philosophers are their points of view, and (as was stated in previous discussions on THIS page) Wikipedia articles are supposed to present facts, not interpretations of facts. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 15:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the authors have their own points of view on the Quebec nation, which they express in their texts (that were ultimately published in a book in addition to the media). But they do not deny the facts demonstrating the existence of a national life in Quebec and shared national institutions whose vocation are not only provincial or regional. This is not the case with Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan etc. It could change, but right now observation indicates that the people of Ontario do not consider themselves a nation and have no need for distinct national institutions like Quebec. Also, Le Devoir is no more pro-Quebec than the National Post is pro-Canada. -- Mathieugp 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with you here either! It is true that Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have not made claims of nationhood. Neither has Nova Scotia (my home). What I can say though, is that each of the provincial departments in the other provinces refer to themselves as provincial while Quebec refers to them as national. This may have been used to refer to the cultural nation that does not exist (in the same manner) in other provinces, or it may have been a nationalist/sovereignist stab at the "Rest of Canada." I can't give an answer because it is ambiguous: I will not interpret facts for readers. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of confusion in here. Benoit Pelletier, from the Liberal Party of Quebec recognizes the Quebec Nation but he is a Federalist. Charles Taylor as well. There is no such thing as the Quebecois people. This spelling is totally wrong. The fact is that Quebec is a nation, with all the definitions you want. The nation of Quebec is almost souvereign, it just needs to sign the Constitution of Canada or to create its own state. Pgsylv 15:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the sovereignists, that will not likely happen. Any attempts to open Constitutional debates by the province of Quebec will be resisted by some of the other nine, while any attempt at secession will be blocked by Ottawa. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner: Will you please begin to cite references for your arguments? In particular, if you intend to maintain your claim that there is an academic argument about whether Quebec is a nation, then please do not neglect to provide an academic source that supports it. Maksim2007 04:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond that many examples that support a nation status have been given while NO examples that deny such status have been provided by the people that have brought supportive academic arguments forward. You yourself have expressed belief that Michael Ignatieff supports the status (even though he is not an academic), but have not provided an example that does not support the claim. I understand that you are backing up your point. I am uncertain if this [1] has already been presented, but it supports both sides of the argument. For your consideration, Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No one has contested the existence of a political debate. However, according to the sources that have been provided (Mathieugp, Pgsylv, and perhaps more), it is an academic fact that Quebec is a nation. The unwillingness of the Canadian government to grant official recognition of this fact does not make it a 'questionable issue', nor do newspaper articles and quotes from politicians. If someone can prove that there is an academic school of thought that opposes the point, then we will have a real debate.

Ignatieff's opinion of this issue was only mentioned to counter the claim that 'only separatists believe that Quebec is a nation'. Maksim2007 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, for the third time, no one made the claim that only seperatists push the Quebec nation mantra (stop misrepresenting the main claim): I said that Quebec nationalists do. Seperatists push it to boost their claim that Quebec has the right to secede from Canada; nationalist federalists boost the idea to concentrate more power in the provincial government. Non-nationalists (of various ideological backgrounds) either minimize the issue, or outrightly deny Quebec nationhood. The insistence of Quebec nationalists (politicians, bureacrats, and academics alike) that Quebec is a nation does not make it so.

Indeed, it is not the opinions of the Quebec academic "nationalists" (many would deny that etiquette) that make it so. This would be a logical fallacy, an argument from authority. No one made that claim (stop misrepresenting the main claim). What makes it so is the evidence, historical, social, cultural, political and legal which anyone can observe in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point at hand, I'd like some assurances before I go through the trouble of reiterating and documenting more academic definitions of "nation" and academic claims that a) Quebec is not nation and b) the issue of Quebec nationhood is largely irrelevant (you will find some references at the bottom of the article). In the past, certain editors have chosen to argue against documented views, and ignored the main points a)that these views exist, b) are perfectly legitimate academically, and c) show that there is no academic consensus on this subject. I'd like to be assured that you show good faith and will accept these sources as an indication that there is no academic consensus on this subject, even if you disagree with these views. I accept all nationalist sources here as academically legitimate (although not necessarily legally), which is why I do not argue with them. I expect others will extend the same courtesy. --Soulscanner 21:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you show the same courtesy for academics claiming that Canada is not a nation, unless we mean in the sense of a sovereign State which is not contested by anyone? Being in existence (a) and perfectly legitimate academically (b) these claims would be, following your own reasoning, indicating that there is no academic consensus on this subject (c)? I think this is fair. These claims, next to claims stating otherwise, could maybe go in the lead paragraph in the article on Canada in order for them to have the same weight as those on Quebec? We should maybe also extend the Soulscanner principle to all Wikipedia articles and put next to each other statements on the non-existence and the existence of God, of evolution and of climate change caused by human activity? -- Mathieugp 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain we would show the same courtesy if you provide examples of academics that claim Canada is not a nation. Can you? If you provide such, I'm certain we can remove "Canada is a nation" from the lead paragraph, or discuss the dispute...except, there is no such claim. Canada states Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country..., and leaves it at that. By extension of that principle, couldn't we write on Quebec: Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk]) is a province... and leave it at that? This avoids the nation debate altogether. We can still write the Quebecois are a nation and not have a conflict like this. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. That would be funny. For sure there is one lunatic who happens to be a university professor who wrote that Canada is not a nation. However, Quebec academics who are also nationalists, of the federalist kind or the sovereignist kind, are not dishonest enough to deny basic legal, political and social evidence and only they would have an interest in claiming something so untrue for political purposes. I believe you got from what I wrote that I was pointing out the absurdity of Soulscanner's approach to the question. -- Mathieugp 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What Andrew writes makes the most sense to me. The predominant message on the Wikipedia page describing the characteristics of a nation seems to point at peoples meeting most of the requirements of nationhood, not territories, and so discussing the status of the Nation of Quebeckers would be more appropriate within the Quebecois article. CWPappas 06:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The English motion does say Québécois in italics, there is no way around this. The French motion says something that should have been translated as "Quebecers" to be exact. Everything else is interpretation and very politicized. -- Mathieugp

I understood your point Mathieu, but I don't think Soulscanner was entirely wrong. The point that I was trying to bring was to drop this issue altogether. Wikipedia editors (let alone academics) are unable to reach a consensus about the nationhood of Quebec...by not adding "Quebec is a nation" to the article, we silence those who argue that it isn't and those who believe the claim will have to accept that - due to a lack of consensus - it is not written. Following this, we can leave a disclaimer on the talk page that "Quebec is a nation" should not be added to the page.

As wikipedia editors, we are not to provide conclusions for readers - only facts. "Quebec is a nation," argued by some and disputed by others, is nonetheless a claim. That the French-speaking descendants of New France habitants who share a distinct society and culture form a nation is a fact that we all agree upon. If we are unable to agree on an issue, it should not be added to the article.

Therefore I propose: we leave "Quebec is a province..." in the article, add (if it's not already there) "French-speaking Quebecers, descendant from the colonists of New France, form a distinct society and culture constituting a nation," and we leave out "Quebec - the territory - is a nation."

Opinions... Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Andrew647's wording but favour its placement on the Quebecoise page on Quebec's people, as opposed to this page on the province (but could live with its inclusion here if concensus is otherwise reached). The motion does say Québécois, referring to the people, not Quebec, the province.

Also, Mathieu could you please stop inserting your comments above other peoples' comments? It is much easier for everyone to read if the comments are added in chronological order. CWPappas 06:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think it is pointless at this time to mention the subject of Quebec's nationhood in this article. As I wrote above, what would make sense would be to focus on getting the Quebec nationalism article in shape. -- Mathieugp 15:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Update

I know the article is protected, but I'm editing all Canadian provinces' population stat to the latest update. Admins, it would be nice if you do it for me. It's in the info box. Population: 7,700,807 and the source code is < ref>"Canada's population estimates 2007-09-27". Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2007-09-27.</ref >

Remove "Quebecois" and put "Quebec"

I suggest we remove "Quebecois" and put "Quebec" in the first paragraph. Quebecois is a neologism with implicit strategic reasons. I suggest we write in the intro that Quebec is a nation (wich is a fact, according to the Wikipedia definition of Nation). Pgsylv 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recommended above, we should remove the "Quebec is a nation" claim altogether from this article about the Province of Quebec. As stated, academics are unable to come up with a consensus...how can Wikipedia editors do it? Therefore, following WP:CON, I motion that we refer to the Quebecois people as a nation, but not Quebec itself. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is a consensus among the Academics in Quebec about the fact that Quebec is a nation. The nation of a Canadian is Canada. The nation of a Quebecois is Quebecois? Non-sens my friend. Anyway, you have no weight in this discussion because you are confused: you don't know the difference between ethnic nationalism and the civic one. How could you give your opinion on what Quebeckers are? Pgsylv 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not wrong, look at the discussions we have been having above. A consensus among Quebecer academics is NOT a consensus among all academics. The nation (sovereign state) of the nation (culture and society) of Canadians is Canada. The province of the nation (culture and society) of Quebecois is Quebec. You are changing the definition of nation whenever it suits you, and that ambiguity is exactly why "Quebec is a nation" should not be added to the article on the Province.

By the way, I know a great deal about Quebec, it's history, and the people that live there. I lived in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu for a year and I know many people all across the province. Go ahead and continue to insult my understanding of the situation... Andrew⁶⁴⁷ —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

By looking at Pgsylv's contributions, it is clear he is only here to illustrate a WP:POINT . Bad faith? Tomj 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he has specific subjects he likes to edit, and indeed seems prone to edit-warring at times. But I don't see that his edits are made in bad faith, at all. However, I would like to remind you to please assume good faith and comment on the edits, not the editor.--Ramdrake 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I have requested time to review sources to determine an academic consensus that is not explicitly Quebecois. Since this request was not honoured, I reverted the edit and requested page protection to provide time to resolve this. In addition to this, the edit was made without consensus of the editors, against wikipedia policy. To top all of this off, often when I respond to the editor's comments, I receive no reply and a new thread - pushing the exact same idea - is created. I will not accuse Pgsylv of bad faith at this point, because he provides sources for his arguments. I will say, however, that Pgsylv has not provided me an opportunity to review the books and he has not attempted to reach a consensus among us editors. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)