Talk:Quebec/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Whether to include "nation" in lead

Restoring that the people of Quebec form a nation

I have restored the sentence in the intro that says that the Canadian government recognized that the people of Quebec form a nation. Again, the same arguments are valid: there is no need for every individual in a nation to identify as part of the nation for the nation to exist. Also, there is no proof that anyone who is a citizen of Quebec is forcibly excluded from membership in the nation: on the contrary Harper did mention it is a matter of personal choice, thus, potentially if they so choose, every citizen of Quebec may identify with the Quebecois nation. Thus, it would be exact to say that the people of Quebec have been deemed a nation, since there is no firm exclusion between the term Quebecois and Quebecer, only that Quebecois may apply mre closely to those of French language and culture. If anybody wishes to dispute these facts, I would invite them to present reliable sources to that effect.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. I think the way you formulate it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.198.72 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't say Quebec (itself) is a nation? I'll accept it. Though IMHO, it's being in the introduction, may be viewed by others, as political agenda pushing. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could there also be a note added, that it's unknown if the motion meant every Quebecer? The motion might mean just the francophones or it may exclude the aboriginals or inuit. What if there's Quebecers who don't consider themselves a nation? Again, there should be a note of some kind, that points out the motion's (deliberate?) vagueness. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, here is the problem: the motion in French reads "Les Québécois forment une nation dans un Canada uni" In French, there is no ambiguity that the potential membership of the nation is the entire citizenship of the province (some individuals may not want to identify, for whatever reason). In English, one of the main interpretations of "Quebecois" indeed amounts to the same thing. However, if the wording in English was meant to forcibly exclude any Quebecer from membership in the nation, this would be the first time that any ruling (law or motion or whatever) passed by the Canadian Parliament would have a different meaning depending on the language used. Honestly, that wouldn't be very smart. Therefore, the use of the French word in the English motion shouldn't be taken as meaning that there is any restriction on the potential membership of the nation.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Some definitions of Quebecois in French exclude anglophones (see Quebecois page). Stephen Harper was explicit that the word Qubecois did not include all Quebecers:

"In an interview with the Canadian Press, Harper, who introduced a motion in the Commons last month recognizing the Québécois as a nation within Canada, said there is no exact definition, so it's up to an individual to decide whether they are Québécois. "I think you identify yourself. It's an identity, not a legal definition," the prime minister said. "Being a Canadian carries a legal definition — you're a citizen or you're not. But the idea of a Quebec nation is strictly a matter of identity and you can't define it for everyone." He said the concept implies ties to the French language and the territory of Quebec. "Obviously, this idea is linked to the French language. For that reason, if you're speaking of a Québécois nation you're speaking of French," he said. "You're speaking of the Québécois, not Quebecers." When asked whether anglophone Quebecers are part of the Québécois nation, Harper said: "I think some anglophones and some ethnic groups identify with the Québécois nation. Maybe some don't," he said. "I don't think it's possible to put precise terms to it." If the main criterion is an attachment to the French language, Harper was asked, does that mean all French-Canadians — even those outside Quebec — belong to the Québécois nation? "I'm not sure," Harper said, speaking in French."As I said, I think it's an identity. Those who share that identity belong to that identity. Those who don't share it aren't part of it."

Please tell me of a definition of Quebecois in French which specifically excludes anglophones. Please bring reliable sources which say so. Also, the Harper interview reads clearly to me that not all Quebecers are Quebecois, but not through some specific restriction. Harper said it: it's a matter of identification. No one is forcibly excluded. And not everyone needs to identify with the nation for the nation to exist.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The inivasion of Iraq made it's way onto BBC pages much more often, and you don't find it in the lead sentence of the UK or United States page. Appearing int he BBC does not justify putting a subject in the lead. Please tell me why this should be mentioned and not the 1995 Referendum. That made it in the BBC too. --soulscanner (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are basing it on the noteriety of the event. The Referendum was more noteworthy. This is not even a law. It's motion. The Clarity Act as a law with legal consequences. --soulscanner (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

All this needs to be explained. Nation is too vague and controversial a term to mput in the lead without a qualifier. It means different things to different people. Harper's definition is obviously different from Ramdrake's and other Quebec nationalists. In addition, the motion is largely inconsequential. It has no effect on Quebec's legal status or that of anyone living in Quebec. It is not important enough to put in the lead sentence. No one has shown that it should be mentioned before the two referenda, the existence of a separatist party, or the existence of a nationalist movement. --soulscanner (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayeb the fact that the motion made news around the world (BBC, A2, etc.) the very next day gives it some importance. Nobody outside Canada spoke much of the Loi sur la clarté référendaire. The motion may not have legally changed anything, but its symbolic importance was noted around the world. I'd call that important enough.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the 1995 referendum did too. So did the Herouxville proclamation. It doesn't justify putting in the lead. --soulscanner (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't seriously compare those. The 1995 referendum wasn't a law (it was a referendum), and the Herouxville proclamation was shunned by most Quebecers as being way over the line.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

However, there's nothing in the motion that says all Quebecers are a nation. I still think we should point out the 'vagueness' of the 'motion'. But it's not something that I'm gonna loose sleep over. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In every nation, you will find people who, for a variety of reasons, do not identify with the nation, although they do meet the membership requirement. Not all Quebecers need to consider themselves as part of the nation for the nation to exist and to potentially include all its citizenship. Hope that makes things clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no membership requirement according to Harper. It's voluntary. Anglophones who do not identify with it, are not part of it. Harper is clear on this. membership is based on identity. Other might have other definitions. That makes the point that the term is unclear and contraversial. --soulscanner (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership in any nation is voluntary. One may have American citizenship, live on American soil and still identify as something else than American. That doesn't prevent the American nation from existing, nor does it make its definition less clear in any way, shape or form.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put forward a reworked version, as per my edit here, to word as follows:

Quebec (pronounced /kwɨˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk][1]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada.

Quebec is bordered to the west by the province of Ontario, James Bay and Hudson Bay, to the north by Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay, to the east by the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. It is bordered on the south by the American states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. It also shares maritime borders with the Territory of Nunavut, the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Nova Scotia.

Quebec is Canada's largest province by area and its second-largest administrative division; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. It is the second most populated province, behind Ontario, and the only one whose people were recognized as a nation by a motion of the federal Canadian government. The majority of its inhabitants live along or close to the banks of the Saint Lawrence River, while the central and north portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited by the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Quebec operates North America's largest and most extensive civil service.

Ramdrake reverted my edit seven minutes after I posted it, but I still feel it has a much more natural flow. If the consensus is that the line must be in the very first paragraph, we could always move the "largest" text up there to keep the flow. (The current version feels tacked on and quite out of place.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it's writen now is good, thanks to Ramdrake. I think we could reach a consensus with those two lines. T Y Pgsylv (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as well. Good job Ramdrake. Pieuvre (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's being in the introduction is not necessary. But it's not the end of the world, so Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to show that it is relevant; no one has shown this yet. The motion in question carried no legal weight. No one hs yet demonstrated that it is more relevant than existence of nationalist movement. This pushes nationalist political POV in a major, major way without attributing it to a political POV. It belongs later in the lead. --soulscanner (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it particularly pushes a nationalistic POV, as the reference also exists in the Spanish, Italan and German versions of WP (not even counting French). The motion did not need to carry any legal weight to have international symbolic import. Like I said, most important Canadian laws are ever hardly talked about abroad. This one was extensively reported upon.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As extensively as the Quiet Revolution, first election of the PQ in 1976, 1980 and 1995 Referendums, the patriation of the COnstitution, Meech Lake, the Charlottetown Accord, etc.? I don't think so. I would mention all these before I mentioned the symbolic Harper motion. These had much more lasting impacts. Please find arguments that Quebecois nation motion is more important than these. I'll point out that the French wikipedia site is blocked because of this issue. It;s nationalist that consider Quebec a nation. Other Canadians generally don't. --soulscanner (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the events you are talking about (Quiet Revolution, first PQ election, both referendums) are historical events as compared to laws or motions. And please stop using ad hominems: It's nationalists that consider Quebec a nation. Other Canadians generally don't. While it's true that most Quebecers consider they form a nation within Canada, the fact that the motion passed nearly unanimously (or was it unanimously?) in the House of Commons belies your generalization that other Canadians generally don't... unless you wish to prove that the House of Commons isn't representative of its constituents!--Ramdrake (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a law. It's a symbolic motion. It doesn't have legal validity. The referdna were more notable events. --soulscanner (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus -The people of Quebec as a nation

It looks like User:Soulscanner heavily disagrees with the current consensus that mentions that the people of Quebec form a nation in the lead sentence. Again, then, I see no choice but to reiterate a request for the opinion of the various editors active here: should we, for the third or fourth time, debate again on the merits of such a mention? I'd like to mention that the consensus which has existed until now (and is now broken) was a compromise between editors wanting to say that "Quebec is a nation" and others who did not feel it was important. I'd like to find out whether User:Soulscanner's reverts reflect a real change in consensus or just another instance of POV-warring.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been the subject of various edit wars in the past week. There is no consensus on adding this, as there is no justification given as to why this motion is noteworthy. There are many more noteworthy events in Quebec than this motion. This is far from a historic event. It has been off the page for weeks now. --soulscanner (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic gained consensus to add at least two, possibly three times since last August. You denying there is consensus to add this doesn't make it so, especially when four other editors have weighed in on the re-add this time (see section above) and have endorsed the addition. Unfortunately, your behaviour now is tantamount to thinly-veiled POV-warring against consensus. I urge you to cease and desist, or prove that consensus has changed.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

they have hardly weighed in to re add. They actually reverted several times, along with myself. here's a documentation of the edit warring.

• 1 revert02:44, 13 February 2008
• 2 revert23:42, 14 February 2008
• 3 revert20:01, 15 February 2008
• 4 revert02:05, 16 February 2008
• 5 revert15:28, 16 February 2008
• 6 revert17:45, 16 February 2008
• 7st revert: 21:36, 16 February 2008
• 8nd revert: 22:26, 16 February 2008
• 9rd revert: 00:32, 17 February 2008
• 10th revert: 01:11, 17 February 2008
• 11th revert: 02:24, 17 February 2008

It is a weak consensus, but a consensus nevertheless. The above editors all scrutinized it. --soulscanner (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, the reverts are about stating that Quebec is a nation. The previous consensus was about stating that the people of Quebec form a nation; I wouldn't support stating Quebec is a nation either, as it is tantamount to saying Quebec is a nation-state, which is demonstrably wrong. However, saying that the people of Quebec form a nation clarifies the meaning of nation being used (shared cultural and linguistic heritage, and a sense of identity). Please reconsider.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am completely neutral regarding this point, so I'll give my two penneth. There must be plenty of reliable sources that discuss the putative nationhood of Quebeckers, and so it is easily verifiable, likewise the fact that Quebeckers have had two referenda regarding independence, one of which was only narrowly lost, does tend to speak to the fact that this subject is very important and noteworthy to the people of Quebeck. So I do think this is noteworthy, but the lead should give both points of view, we need reliable sources supporting the concept of Quebeck nationhood, and reliable sources that do not support this contention. Then we can say that there is strong feeling on both sides of the debate and allow anyone reading the article to form their own conclusion. Alun (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is splitting hairs. It pushes nationalist POV becasue it includes all Quebecers in the defintion, when Harper's definition does not. The motion does not solve any outstanding issues. The main political issue is who has power: the federal or the provincial government. Quebec nationalists want more power to go to the province, and this motion did nothing to address the real issue. AS such, it is not a historic motion that should be mentioned. What's more important is that Quebec nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation. It is standard practice to express POV's as opinions of certain groups or individuals. --soulscanner (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please bring reliable sources that say any Quebec citizen is de facto excluded from the membership even if they would like to be included. People who do not wish to identify do not count, as they can obviously be included in the membership if they so wish.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts do the same thing. Thye effectively promote the idea that the Quebecois nation is an objective fact, when it is in fact disputed. All you have to do is put it in the context of Quebec nationalism, constitutional politics, and identity politics, and I'll have no trouble with it. --soulscanner (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personnally, I would accept something along the lines of

Quebec is the only province whose people have been recognized as a nation (insert refs here) by the Canadian Parliament, even though this recognition is still hotly debated (insert refs here).

What do other editors think?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. English speaking Quebecers do not identify as Quebecois. So not all of Quebec's people are recognized. Only those who identify witht he French culture count in the Quebecois nation motion. This motion has no legal standing; it is not like the Clarity Act, which does. It also does not satisfy the demand of Quebec nationalists for a devolution of constitutional powers from the federal government to the province. It deosn't solve anything. --soulscanner (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with that. But the lead sentence isn't the place to discuss that. It's a complex issue that is not clear cut. I'm not arguing whether or not Quebec is a nation, or whether the Quebecois form a nation. Quebec nationalists believe it is, and about half of all Canadians believe it isn't. The problem is that the different sides cannot even agree what a nation is. For example, I'm an English speaking Quebecker, and in English, we distinguish between Quebeckers (i.e. someone who lives in Quebec) and Quebecois, someone who identifies with the French-speaking culture. Some people include English-speaking Quebecers, and some don't.

The Quebecois nation motion plays with that ambiguity. The Prime Minister says it is purely a question of identity, while Quebec nationalists say it is a question of citizenship. Ther eis not enough room in the lead sentence to explain this. --soulscanner (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, saying that the Anglophones don't identify themselves as Québécois is somewhat false as for example Harper's Quebec lieutenant Lawrence Cannon considers himself to be an Anglophone and a Québécois at the same time. He's not of French decent, nor does he quite identify himself with the French culture (obviously he speaks French), but he still identifies himself to be Québécois. nat.utoronto 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have many friends of various anglophone backgrounds (one of them was even born in Winnipeg) who plainly identify as Quebecois, even though some of them don't have a perfect command of French. Soulscanner, if you wish to say that many anglophones do not wish to identify as Quebecois, that's fine and factually correct; just please don't pretend they are de facto excluded from the definition.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe not your definition, but accordng to Harper's definition (it was his motion) anglophones who do not identify as Quebecois (the majority) are not including (again, according to Harper). Harper and Quebec nationalists have different definitions of Quebecois nation. Which one counts? I don't know. We need to list them in the article so that people know what we're talking about. Presenting one definition as the right one is pushing POV. Several definitions are given at the Quebecois page. It's better discussing issues of identity there. --soulscanner (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• AS Harper says, some do, and some don't. Most do not. When you talk of Quebecois, you're not talking about Mordecai Richler or Jan Wong, or the Arcade Fire; you're talking Michel Tremplay, Michel Venne, and Celine Dion.

A survey of 1,500 Canadians by Leger Marketing for the Association of Canadian studies in November, 2006 showed that Canadians were deeply divided on this issue. When asked if Quebecers are a nation, only 48 per cent of Canadians agreed, 47 per cent disagreed, with 33 per cent strongly disagreeing; 78 per cent of French-speaking Canadians agreed that Quebecers are a nation, next to 38 per cent of English-speakers. As well, 78 per cent of 1,000 Quebecers polled thought that Quebecers should be recognized as a nation. Among french native speaking Quebecers the support was at 96 [1].

So most anglos in Quebec don't think of Quebec as a nation; they do think of the Quebecois as a nation like the Cree or the Acadians. --soulscanner (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See my posting below (I meant to put it here). GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Still, the fact that an overwhelming majrity (78%) of Quebecers consider they should be recognized as a nation, doesn't that make this recognition prominent enough for the lead? And characterizing the identification of Quebecers as a nation as the POV of nationalists marginalises what is the opinion of nearly four Quebecers out of five. Keeping it out of the lead altogether is totally unacceptable for these reasons, IMHO. At least be honest and let's write that most Quebecers consider themselves to form a nation rather than Quebec nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister Harper's interpretation

Here's Prime Minister Harper's interpretation, who brought forward the motion, interprets it:

"In an interview with the Canadian Press, Harper, who introduced a motion in the Commons last month recognizing the Québécois as a nation within Canada, said there is no exact definition, so it's up to an individual to decide whether they are Québécois. "I think you identify yourself. It's an identity, not a legal definition," the prime minister said. "Being a Canadian carries a legal definition — you're a citizen or you're not. But the idea of a Quebec nation is strictly a matter of identity and you can't define it for everyone." He said the concept implies ties to the French language and the territory of Quebec. "Obviously, this idea is linked to the French language. For that reason, if you're speaking of a Québécois nation you're speaking of French," he said. "You're speaking of the Québécois, not Quebecers." When asked whether anglophone Quebecers are part of the Québécois nation, Harper said: "I think some anglophones and some ethnic groups identify with the Québécois nation. Maybe some don't," he said. "I don't think it's possible to put precise terms to it." If the main criterion is an attachment to the French language, Harper was asked, does that mean all French-Canadians — even those outside Quebec — belong to the Québécois nation? "I'm not sure," Harper said, speaking in French."As I said, I think it's an identity. Those who share that identity belong to that identity. Those who don't share it aren't part of it."

So according to him, it's a vague notion with no real meaning. Anyone can be Quebecois, and anyone can opt out. It's a question of identity, not citizenship according to Harper. --soulscanner (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There's one thing I don't understand. The 'motion' is about the people in Quebec (not the province itself) right? Then why is it put in the lead of this article? The lead of the Quebecois article would be more appropiate, would it not? GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, if you look at it, the article is as much abot the population of Quebec (demographics, history, etc.) as it is about the territory.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good day has a point. The subject of the motion is about the Quebecois. That's where this subject should be stressed. It's true that the many nations of Quebec are described here, but the Quebecois are but one nation. There is geography, government, history, government, etymology, territorial expansion, all mentioned here. The article is about much more than the Quebecois. --soulscanner (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But why not add the 1980 & 1995 sovereignty referendums aswell? GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For the stability of the article (to avoid edit wars), the motion (which is already in the article) should be removed from the lead. It's not worth the hassel; it's being in the lead, give the impression (regretfully) of Quebec nationalism. Again, it's not worth the hassel. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A better solution

Here's a neutral way of presenting the POV of nationalists in context in 4th paragraph of lead section; it's too complicated to mention in the lead sentence without important digression; presenting the POV of nationalists as a fact poses serious POV problems. Mentioning it the context of identity and constitutional politics as the POV of nationalists is fair.

Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada. There have been (unsuccessful) referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My worries have been confirmed: Having the 'motion' in the introduction (lead) is too much of a hassel. We should allow this article to follow the other provinces & territories articles leads (for stability's sake). My worries have been confirmed, others see the prominant positioning of the 'motion' in the article, as being 'political agenda pushing'. Soulscanner has major points though - it's just a motion (and a vague one at that) & not an Parliamenty Act & shouldn't be given prominance over the 1980 & 1995 referendums. The fact that it's being in the lead, is causing other editors to charge 'Quebec nationalism pushing'? is enough of a reason to keep it out (of the lead). GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of Quebecois

A Québécois ([kebeˈkwa]), or in the feminine Québécoise ([kebeˈkwɑːz]), is a native or resident of the Canadian province of Quebec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province, or to someone who identifies with Quebec's French-speaking majority culture.

In English, Quebecer or Quebecker (/kwɪˈbɛkər/ or /kəˈbɛkɚ/) is used to refer to any resident of Quebec, including English-speaking Quebecers or allophone natives or residents of Quebec.

With a lower-case initial, the word québécois is also used to refer to Quebec French, a variant of the French language spoken by Quebec's population. As an adjective, it can refer to Quebec's francophone culture or population or the culture of French Canadians living in Quebec.

In French, Québécois refers to a native or any resident of Quebec. In a cultural context, it can also refer to a French Canadian living in Quebec, or, as an adjective, refers to French Canadian culture in Quebec.

--soulscanner (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, it is rather disingenuous to provide as a reference a WP article which by and large you wrote yourself. This is akin to pushing OR to try to prove a point.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of reference is Lysianne Gagnon anyway ? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgsylv (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are four references that provide varous definitions of Quebecois in English and French. They show that Quebecois has various meanings, including resident of Quebec, francophones of Quebec, or French Canadians in Quebec. They appear in most complete dictionaries. Please not that all the refeferences are good, and show that thse definitions exist in English and in French. Please address definitions 4-7. They are dictionary definitions. --soulscanner (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lysianne Gagnon editorials are examples of a Quebecoise who does not believe that Quebec is a nation, and that believes that Harper's motion was a semantic game. I agree that this view needs to be balanced before being inserted into the article by other viewpoints. All viewpoints should be discussed here before being inserted. --soulscanner (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read her piece (the French one) not as saying the Quebec nation doesn't exist, but as saying the motion doesn't properly and fully recognize the Quebec nation. There is a significant difference.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not far from what I'm saying. The motion is largely meaningless. It does not grant more powers (i.e. autonomy) to the Quebec government, which is what Quebec nationalists really want. That is the real heart of the issue; the motion just makes a mockery of it. It gives a token recognition to a French Canadian nation in Quebec, which has no legal standing in Canada. That's why it's not worth mentioning in the lead doesn't change anything constitutionally. I think saying that nationalists seek more autonomy for Quebec and see it is a nation is a fair way of framing their POV in a neutral way.

I think the constitutional debate is well worth mentioning, but not in the lead sentence, and especially with this silly motion. No article starts out with a lead sentence that brings up the political flavor of the month, and this motion makes a mockery of things. --soulscanner (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Found the last wording that had consensus

I found and put back the last exact wording which had consensus. It says Quebec is the homeland of a people recognised as a nation, and doesn't get into the polemic of who's included and who isn't. It's absolutely factual, and I don't see where it could lead to nationalist interpretation. How about it?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with it, though it's location may bug others. The wording was never a problem, it's being in the lead was. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ramdrake, I've reverted your most recent edit only so that we can discuss the matter (and reach a consensus). Why a revert? That is a fair question; I've no interest in a revert war, and won't perpetuate one. However, my reasoning is that the inclusion of "nation" is something of a lightning rod, if you will, and so I'd strongly suggest that we leave it out for now so that we can keep the article stable and focus on achieving consensus. (I'd also suggest incorporating a hidden comment about the term, and the fact a discussion is under way, but wanted to run that by you first.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I'm growing tired of this back and forth (not meaning this one discussion, but the whole set of discussions stretching all the way back to last year). OK, people are saying that if we do put the mention of a nation in the lead, it will attract editors who will want to edit it out, thus making the article unstable. However, it is also true that if we leave it out of the intro, it will also attract other editors which will repeatedly put it in (as just happened during the last couple of weeks). The only viable solution I can see is to mention it in the lead, but in a fashion that both positions can live with, so it doesn't attract editors with the desire to correct what they feel is either an omission, or an overstatement, depending on one's POV. Does that make sense? I don't see that omitting it from the lead will make the article any more stable, and I would dare say the last couple of weeks, with over a dozen reverts over the issue, amply proves my point.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As a Federalist, I'm secure enough, to allow it (the motion) being mentioned in the lead. Afterall, it was a 'motion' passed by the House of Commons (a Federalist body); not the Quebec Assembly. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding (pun intended) the fact that the Quebec National Assembly passed a very similar motion just before that. I'm open to discuss putting some statement in the lead that will make clear this motion was passed, while making sure it is worded in no way so that anyne can assume Quebec is a nation-state rather than a nation (ethnocultural identity definition).--Ramdrake (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you revert ?

Ramdrake, Pieuvre and me Pgsylv have agreed on one version. You revert it. What kind of behavior is that. I will ask you get banned. 70.83.226.185 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to get ugly. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Several other editors disagree. Three editors out of a dozen does not make a consensus. Ckatz, DoubleBlue, Royalguard, and myself all reverted references to Quebec nation in last two weeks. They are well documented. Page was semi-protected to prevent anonymous IP's from reverting. Pgsylv was banned for edit warring. Pieuvre was perfectly happy with this version for two weeks. --soulscanner (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying things: Pgsylv was blocked for being uncivil & edit warring. Also, the argument a few days ago, was over an edit claiming Quebec itself was a nation (which it isn't). Ramdrake's edit was the people of Quebec being a nation (not the province itself). GoodDay (talk)

That issue has been handled in the fourth paragraph where the "nation" debate is treated in context. Many dispute that the Quebecois are a nation, and many more think it unimportant. Prime minister Harper, for instance, minimizes its important as a simple case of cultural identity. There is also the issue of whether the Quebecois nation motion itself is more important than, say, the majority of Quebecers being francophone, and Quebec nationalists seeking more autonomy from the federal government. I think those should be mentioned first. I myself think it's silly to deny that the Quebeconation exists, but the opinions of those that do needs to be respected. --soulscanner (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind Ramdrake's version being in the lead (personally). But, I do mind it being there, if it's going to cause 'edit warring' & basically, alot of hassle (per my above concerns). GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind either, but honestly first thing in my mind is just kill this ridicious spat that has been going on for months. As long as it does say the Quebecois form as a nation, I'm fine with it. Whether it should be in the lead or not, I'll have to say I don't know how to explain myself. I'll have to say the referendums of 1980/1995 and Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords are more important for the Quebecois history. This recognization of Quebecois nation (the people) is a new thing, but it should not be ignored however. I suppose in the future it'll be more detailed and defined. Just remember we had our days when we argued if Quebec is a distinct society or not, and now people don't really question that today. The whole "nation" issue is a repeat of our "distinct society" arguements back in the 1980s and 1990s. Pieuvre (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a complicated issue, and there are many sides to it (not just two). It should be touched on here, and more fully developed in another article, maybe the Quebecois or Quebec nationalism articles. It also needs to be presented in context, as you say with Meech Lake, referendums, etc. The Quebec nation is not a fact in the sense of there being a province with a francophone majority, certain borders, and a strong nationalist movement; those are things you can't argue with. It is more something you believe in, like a political ideal or an identity. --soulscanner (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess another argument for not having it in the lead, would be that the other provinces articles use their leads mostly for geographic purposes. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Now folks, since all we've got accomplished so far with this brouhaha is to get this page fully protected (again), can we hammer out another compromise.

I think so far there is a consensus that just saying "Quebec is a nation" is incorrect and inappropriate. However, since the removal of the mention of the Quebecois nation motion did lead to a dozen reverts over a couple of weeks, and the inclusion of the same mention has been reverted another three times, I guess the next question is: what can we mention in the lead so that we can minimize drive-by editors who feel this is either omitted or overemphasized, thus changing the article and making it unstable?

My own opinion on the matter is this: this recognition, even though purely symbolic (we all agree on that) is important to a large proportion of Quebecers, nationalists or not (personnally, I don't consider myself a nationalist; I just fully endorse the "distinct but equal society" bit).

I fully acknowledge that whatever we write, we must be crystal clear that what we write cannot be misinterpreted: we cannot write the sentence so that someone believes Quebec to be a nation-state when it isn't. However, while being clear, we also must be as concise as possible, to remain encyclopaedic.

I would like to suggest we start with the last version that was reverted by Ckatz and work from there until we find a compromise everyone can at least live with. Thanks to all.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify again, the 'motion' is already in the article (so its inclusion isn't a problem). It's being (or not being) in the lead is the problem. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And its inclusion -or not- in the lead, is what has been causing the various reverts. So I do think we do need something in the lead, lest we face again the same constant revert issues. The recent pas has proven that merely having it in the article as a sentence buried somewhere is just not enough. We do need something in the lead. The question remains.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a toughy. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Just as you arrived at a logical conclusion that the inclusion of a too-vague or too-inclusive sentence abut the nationhood of the Quebecois would lead to instability and constant reverts, I took a wider look at the edit history, and realized that its omission would also have the same results. I still think the alternative is to put in the lead something short, but very specific.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a 'footnote'? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to be an objector of conscience here, but if it can't be read in the plain text, people will still think it has been omitted. This may be hard to grasp, but as symbolic and legally valueless as the motion is, it has been very important to (most) Quebecers in that they felt their distinctiveness was at last acknowledged. In that sense, it may turn out to have carried more historical significance than any of the two referendums.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's another (old) idea. Keep it out of the lead here & have it in the lead at Quebecois. OK, I know it's not a acceptable solution, but the only other alternative would be (when the page is unlocked), have editors allowed only 1RR. If they breach it? they should be blocked. The 1RR would discourage editors from 'reverting'. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think restricting reverts will solve the problem, or actually putting it on another page either. I think hammering out a compromise everyone can live with and defend if it is changed is the best way to a long-lasting solution.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm content with your version being in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In that sense, yes, it is a great moral victory for the Quebecois to see that motion passed by the Canadian Parliament. That's probably the biggest value coming from that motion. But this is quite new and it hasn't made as much noises as the referendums, 1982 constitution, and the failed accords back in the 1980s and 1990s (because of their greater impacts on Quebec and Canada). Only time will tell and I have no reason to doubt it'll become more of an issue in the future. But I don't have anything to suggest how to put it in the lead right without those editors reverting seeing that many attempts only have failed to live more than a few days to a week. Pieuvre (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion

I don't think the passage is that bad; it's placement is appropriate. IMO. How about something along this line, short and sweet, and allowing for great detail later on:

"Quebec has a strong nationalist movement and has held two referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995. In 2008, the Canadian parliament passed a resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In 2008? GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my stupid mistake, it was of course in 2006 and would therefore read:

"Quebec has a strong nationalist movement and has held two referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995. In 2006, the Canadian parliament passed a resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't ya know it. There's a similiar discussion occuring at theScotland article. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, but I don't think it'll survive the reverts. The issue is not the wording, but whether it should be in the lead or not. Pieuvre (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the words that's the problem for some, it's the fact they're in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS-I'm confident we'll reach a solution, people. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I for one think it's in just about the right place. Not at the very top of the article, but high enough that it gives due prominence to what is a very notable aspect to the province.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems having it in the lead is a problem to some, not having it in the lead is a problem to others, for basically the same reason: it will attract reverts. Maybe in order to make the passage less susceptible to reverts, we should go along with Ckatz' and Shawn's suggestions and attach it somewhere further down in the intro? That way, it is still there, but less conspicuous by either its absence or presence. I can also live with that, especially considering all these issues we've been raising about the stability of the article. What do others think?--Ramdrake (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. Let's put it further down the intro. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's already the second to last line in the intro. It can't go any lower. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could suggest to let Shawn's version a try and see how long it will last. We could embed a note <---Do not remove and talk about it in the talk page. This wording in the lead is agreed by consensus.---> That could keep some goodminded Wiki members to think twice. And that is if I am mistaken about the consensus. Pieuvre (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific debate

According to Charles Taylor, Quebec is a nation. I think it's important to write something like "Quebec is a province and a nation ... ". I don't understand why some users are opposed to this. I think a lot of users think their POV are facts ( Soulscanner for example ) . I suggest Soulscanner and GoodDay stay out of this discussion since they have showed bad faith and political biais in their analysis. There are two main facts: Quebec is a nation because academics recognize it and because the people itself recognize it. The ROC has nothing to do with this fact.

I propose that the users wich think Quebec is not a nation post their scientific references since WP is an Encyclopedia. Now, Soulscanner, if you are gonna post POV from columnists from LaPresse or the Globe and Mail, please note that those references can't be considered as scientific, Lysianne Gagnon is NOT an academic and she doesn't proceed with scientific method. Pgsylv (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner and myself, have every right to be in this discussion. Wikipedia is for everyone, it's a collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering C. Taylor's political leaning, I don't think they make a good source (I would've said the same for pro-federalist researches as well). Taylor's books could be on the same line as those columnists from LaPresse, Le Devoir, etc. They have their own opinion and it doesn't necessary reflect the opinions of the Quebecois. Pieuvre (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting (to me at least) that the French WP article (which is also currently semi-protected) has the nation reference higher, but still not as high as you are proposing. I actually like the French WP lead a lot, and would support that, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we have an English translation of the French WP article's version displayed here, for observations? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Taylor is a Quebec nationalist, a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals and affiliated federal NDP, and hence has a partisan political view on the subject. Provided that his political sentiments are clearly identified and balanced with the views of other politicians and political activists, there is not reason they cannot be summarized later in the articles. I think it would be more appropriate, though, at the Quebec nationalism article, as this page is dedicated to summarize for political POV like Taylor's. taylor's views are no more or less "scientific" than any other academic, political activist, or politician. --soulscanner (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't provide 1 scientific reference soulscanner. Nationalist = liberals ? You lie ! You are a liar ! It's a shame. All what you say is total crap! You think Charles Taylor is a nationalist ? He is a federalist ! Don't you know ? Yes you know, but just love to lie. Pgsylv (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: a translation - this is Google's translation of the french article: "Quebec" on the French Wikipedia

Not sure if this helps, since it is a machine's interpretation, but it's a start. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

French intro

Here is the relevant paragraph (2nd) from the French intro:

C'est la seule province canadienne où le français est la langue officielle et on y reconnait l'émergence d'une nation québécoise[3],[4], En 2003 et 2006, l'Assemblée nationale du Québec ainsi que la Chambre des Communes du Canada ont respectivement reconnu les Québécois comme formant une nation, quoique sous une formulation et en des circonstances différentes[5],[6].

In English (translation is mine, so have a heart ;) ): It is the only province where French is the official language, and where the emergence of the (Quebec/Quebecois) nation has been acknowledged: in 2003 and 2006, the Quebec National Assembly and the Canadian House of Commons each have respectively recognized (Quebecers/Quebecois) as forming a nation, albeit under different wordings and circumstances.

For those who asked. The pleasure is mine.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda like it (minus the word 'Quebec'). GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Quebec" is not present in the French text. "Nation québécoise" = it speaks for itself (québécoise forms as an adjective). Pieuvre (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it kinda incorrect that Quebec is the only province where French is the official language because it's also official in New Brunswick. How my prof puts it is "Quebec is is the only province where French is the sole legal/official language allowed to be used in major corporations/medium-to-large size businesses, and public services." and also, apparently (according to my prof), English is co-official in the National Assembly. nat.utoronto 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Soulscanner is showing bad faith. He just wrote: " Charles Taylor is a Quebec nationalist, a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals ... " . Now, since when do Liberals are nationalists ? I'm sure Soulscanner will never answer this Question. He is a liar. Now, I chose Charles Taylor because he is a federalist. His position ( Pieuvre, you never read Charles Taylor ) , is that Quebec is a nation , but should remain in Canada. This discussion is total crap. We have this guy saying " Well it kinda incorrect that Quebec is the only province where French is the official language " . This is a lie. Quebec is the only province which has one language, french. New-Brunswick has 2 ! English and french. You guys just don't know what you are talking about. It's a shame. Go read a few books. All what you propose are POVs. Pgsylv (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I only know Taylor from that "reasonable accommation" commission. I must've confused him with Gérald Bouchard. I do agree with Soulscanner that it's better to put it further down the article or put it in "Quebec nationalism" where it's more useful. However, you're in no position to tell us "you don't know what you're talking about". We're not Mr. Know-It-All and that includes you. And I do read books. I just finished reading "Point de Rupture" by Radio-Canada. Very interesting and gives me more lights in the whole referendum history with POVs of both sides. So yes, I do know what I am talking about when it concerns Quebec politics (especially the recent history). As for the language thing...the suggestion "the only province where French is the sole official language", is fine with me. Pieuvre (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1- dont ever change my comments, just don't touch it. 2- " I only know Taylor from that "reasonable accommation" commission " = you don't know Charles Taylor. 3- If you don't know Charles Taylor, it means you don't know a lot of other academics. 4- " Point de rupture" is not giving any information about the "nation". 4- " I must've confused him with Gérald Bouchard." So it makes me say you might get confused with the whole debate around the Quebec nation, just like Soulscanner. That's why I think you should stay out of this discussion as well since your knowledge about this subject is poor. If I don't know Albany, Am I going to debate with people wanting to change some of the article ? No, because I don't know Albany. Pgsylv (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I moved your comment where it should belong. It shouldn't be under where it used to be. If I deleted a piece of it, my apologies since it wasn't my intention. 2) I merely stated I only know them from that commission. I don't know them personally because I'm not related to them as you may be (I'm being sarcastic here). 3) I'm not interested reading about authors ("academics" as you may call them) who talk about independence, federalism, etc. ad nauseum with different wordings, but similar points. I prefer reading newspapers and magazines when it concerns politics. Observing things is fun. 4) "Point de Rupture" wasn't my attempt to suggest a source here. You insulted us by telling us "go read some books" and I was just giving you a tongue-in-cheek comment. 5) Soulscanner has every right to comment here. You do not hold the authority deciding who can and who cannot participate here. (I'm losing count with the numbers here...you're so unclear with counting and staying conscient) 6) I'm well aware of this whole Quebec nation here. You cannot base my knowledge on a small piece of information. So don't treat us like some ignorance teenagers. 7) What Albany has to do with Quebec? 8) I'm not interested further reasoning with you any further. This is not a forum. We're not here to debate political ideas. We're here to report them (with talk pages to discuss how to report them in the articles) as long as they respect the rules of the Wiki. You can find plenty of forums where you can happily lecture us about those almost unknown "academics" that most of us don't really care. Cheers. Pieuvre (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Soulscanner, you are confused ! You can't be a nationalist AND a Liberal ! You are hilarious ! Was that a joke ? Was that a lie or a funny joke? Look what you wrote: " Charles Taylor is a Quebec nationalist, a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals and affiliated federal NDP, and hence has a partisan political view on the subject. " A nationalist AND a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals? This should be enough for others to understand you don't really know what you are talking about ! Pgsylv (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally you know how to properly place your comments. Again, this is not a forum where you can make some personal attacks. Pieuvre (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:Pgsylv. seicer | talk | contribs 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Quebec is nationalist. It advocates for more transfers of power to Quebec. Charels Taylor is nationalist too. --soulscanner (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lysianne Gagnon is a member of the liberal party, so she is a nationalist too. Logically, with what you are saying, is that the PQ, the Liberals and I guess the ADQ are all nationalists party , right? So 100% of the political parties are nationalists, right ? Then, anyone who votes in Quebec, must be a nationalist, even you, an anglophone from montreal, right ? Then I guess if everybody is nationalist even the anglos, it means Quebec is a nation ? Please explain to me Soulscanner ( He will never answer this question ). Pgsylv (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec is not a nation. The Quebecois are a nation. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Quebec is a coalition of federalist francophones, anglophones, and allophones. Because francophone nationalists are a majority, the party adopts nationalists policies. Anglophones have no choice but to accept it, or more extreme nationalists will come to power, and they count on the federal government to protect their rights.

Personally, I consider the Quebecois (i.e. francophone Quebecers) to be an ethnic or cultural nation, just like the Acadians, the Metis, the Cree of Northern Quebec and English Canadians. It is their choice to associate beased on culture, language, and ethnicity. But that is my personal POV, and really isn't relevant here. I realize that there are others who have a different POV on this, and work with differing definitions . I would never try to push that on Wikipedia. --soulscanner (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with current version?

The current version seems to handle the "nation" question in a NPOV way:

Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada. There have been (unsuccessful) referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995.

Improved version:

Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. Its original European settlers came mostly from France during the French Regime (1608-1760). Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist and sovereignist movements that advocate for greater autonomy and consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada. There have been (unsuccessful) referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995.

I recommend reviewing WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements for some guidelines here. I'm curious to know why the reference to the "Quebec nation" here is not sufficient? --soulscanner (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it talks about nationalists considering Quebec as a nation (as if this was some minority). It doesn't say anything about both the National Assembly and the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a nation. I see a huge difference here. Mention of either the federal motion, or better both motions should be in the introduction, not some vague reference to the fact that some people in Quebec think Quebec is a nation (which is an incomplete representation of the facts, BTW). And, for the record, the Quebec Liberal Party bills itself as federalist, not nationalist, so according to WP rules (and common respect) this should be respected. Saying that the Quebec Liberal Party is a nationalist party is unsupported OR, unless you can attribute this opinion to someone. It certainly isn't the opinion of the party leaders.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since all political parties in Quebec recognize Quebec as a nation, I suggest we write it at the beginning. Pgsylv (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Non starter Pgsylv. Why? Quebec (the province) is not a nation; Quebecois (the people) are. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Liberal party of Quebec supports the devolution of specific powers to Quebec, such as health care and Employment insurance, to Quebec. It's in the party platform.

Your statement that the Liberal party is not nationalist is simply inaccurate. There are many federalist nationalists in Quebec. The house of commons considers the Quebecois as a nation, not Quebec. Let's get this straight. Moreover, it says clearly here that the nationalist movement is strong. If you wish, we can add that the three provincial parties have declared Quebec to be a nation in the National Assembly. --soulscanner (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Jean Charest, leader of the Liberals, " Quebec is a nation ... " [[2]] If Liberals say so, it means that all political parties see the Quebec as a nation. It's a fact, not a POV. There are a lot of references on that , I have provided one here. T Y Pgsylv (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this reference: [[3]]

-Jean Charest: " Premier Jean Charest said it doesn't matter if Canadians in other provinces don't agree that Quebec is a nation. “For us, Quebec is a nation,” Mr. Charest told reporters Saturday after a regional meeting of his Quebec Liberals. “There has never been any doubt in my mind,” he added. “And by the way, neither do I believe that Quebeckers have any permission to ask from anyone to be who they are. "

Pgsylv (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Jean Charest is a nationalist, as I've said before. Nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation, as it already says. Like jean Charest says, for us (i.e. Quebec nationalists) Quebec is a nation. --soulscanner (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Soulscanner. Nobody here, is disputing what Quebec nationalist views are. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

adding 2 words

Hi, I would like to suggest something: write " Quebec is a province and a nation within Canada ... " at the beginning, since all political parties in Quebec recognize it as so, more than 70 % of quebeckers answered in surveys they recognize the Quebec as a nation and finaly because all academics recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation ... within Canada. I have provided several references since july 2007 and I think I have showed that it was a fact, not a POV. Pgsylv (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the House of Commons motion doesn't say 'Quebec is a nation'. It's motion say 'the Quebecois are a nation within a united Canada'. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose ? Pgsylv (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Ramdrake's version, personally. I oppose the line - Quebec is a nation. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So you oppose 5 millions Quebeckers ? Pgsylv (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You oppose the fact that 100% of the political parties recognize Quebec as a nation ? Is that what you mean when you say " I oppose the line - " Quebec is a nation" ? Is that what you do GoodDay ? You are opposed to Soulscanner and Pieuvre ? Pgsylv (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All three parties are nationalist, hence it is already mentioned. --soulscanner (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose the Federal Government. I've no problem with Ramdrake's version & it's being in the article's lead. The Quebec National Assembly can pass a motion 'proclaiming' Quebec is a province of Italy; Does that make Quebec a part of Italy? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So you oppose the Quebeckers, right ? Pgsylv (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly, are you getting at? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we could add that Quebec is a nation but a few Canadians francophile like Don Cherry oppose this fact. Pgsylv (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don Cherry? What's he got to do with the article? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He hates quebeckers just like you do ! Pgsylv (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, GoodDay is saying Canadians don't recognize Quebec as a nation. I think it's not a fact, but a POV. I have showed that Quebeckers recognize Quebec as a nation ( I gave a lot of references ). I think we should start from there. Pgsylv (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate my fellow Canadians? When have I said that? And again, The Canadian government has not (to date) recognized the province of Quebec, as a nation. They have recognized the 'people' of Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Canadians, I said Quebeckers. Do you hate Quebeckers ? Pgsylv (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not hate Quebecers and I've never claimed to have hated Quebecers. What's your point.GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems Pgsylv has no idea what he's talking about. First he calls Cherry a "Francophile," and then says Cherry hates Quebeckers; that's an absolute self-contradiction (I suspect he meant "Francophobe"). Anyway, this whole nation business is a matter of POV, well beyond the scope of this little article. Probably almost everyone in Canada holds a POV on the "nationhood" matter of Quebec and the Quebecois, but that doesn't make any of them right, or even official. So, a Legislative Assembly declared the province a nation; so what? The motion never became law, and the composition of the assembly changes as time goes by; this mean Quebec's nationhood, as seen by the LA, is only temporary. This goes the same for the vague resolution passed by the federal House of Commons; it is in no way an official declaration of nationhood - even if we could define what Harper meant by "the Québécois" - and a future house may collectively see the whole thing in a completely different light. Thus, the whole nation deal is more of a debate than a given fact, and my opinion now is that the lead should steer clear of this contentious issue save for, perhaps, mentioning that nationhood is a thorny and vague issue attached to the province and some of its people. --G2bambino (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be vague and thorny outside of Quebec, but nearly 80% of the Quebec population does consider itself to form a nation. Does that means that 80% of Quebecers are nationalists? If so, the strong nationalist movement should indeed be described as a strong nationalist movement encompassing nearly 80% of the population, as that's what it is. The motions passed by the National Assembly and the House of Commons aren't Bills, they are motions; they aren't laws per se. They were both adopted nearly unanimously, and can't be dropped unless they are officially repealed (and I don't see the day when either federal or provincial government officially repeals them). The Quebecois nationhood is a highly symbolic gesture, and one which made news around the world; moreover, it is an important historical recognition to nearly 80% of Quebecers, regardless of how it is seen outside outside Quebec. I think this makes it important enough to mention in the introduction.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To User:G2bambino: The whole nation business is more than a matter of POV, as it has been the subject of two motions, one federal one provincial, both of which passed with overwhelming support. Also, please review the difference between a motion and a law: neither motion is temporary, unless they get specifically repealed (and I don't see either level of government repealing this one). In short, it seems your assessment of the situation is in serious error on several key points. Also, please review the reasons I gave in the section above why we need something regarding the nationhood issue in the introduction. Pgsylv may have been banned from this article, but there are others who share his viewpoint.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are others who share his viewpoint. That was part of my point. But the crux was that it is all just a matter of viewpoint, and the motions - not laws - passed by the House of Commons and Legislative Assembly of Quebec are just that: expressions of a collective opinion. Polls are just measurements of opinions too, and badly representative ones at that. --G2bambino (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The motion wasn't a poll. It was a resolution of the House of Commons. Unlike a poll, it's not subject to change until repealed or modified through another resolution, and I really don't see a future government repealing the motion any time in the foreseeable future.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Nobody said the resolution was a poll, and nobody said the polls were resolutions. Please try again, if you like. --G2bambino (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Pgsylv wasn't banned from this article, because of his views. He was banned for being uncivil. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was banned for his views, neither do I wish to imply this; he was banned for being uncivil, but his viewpoint is a legitimate one, and may be shared by other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. His political point of view is legitimate and shared by many nationalist Quebecers, but it still is a point of view. The point of view of non-Quebecers and English speaking Quebecers is also legitimate. That is why any statement here needs to balance the common POV's expressed using referenced sources.

The second point is that there are many Quebecers (nationalists and non-nationalists alike) who really see the issue as a relatively minor one in Quebec politics. Nationalists themselves cannot agree on a definition for the Quebec nation, and to many the issue is really one of semantics and partisan political games. No scholarly survey of modern Quebec nationalism would open with the Harper motion. There are many more facts in history (e.g. the francophone minority, the referendums, the Quiet Revolution, the language Charter, the Constitution Act of 1982) that are more relevant to the issue of Quebec's autonomy (whether one sees it inside or outside the Canadian federation) --soulscanner (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect is intended, but insofar as I'm aware, these Quebecers are a minority (maybe a relatively large minority - 20-25%, but a minority). We shouldn't decide whether this piece is worthy of inclusion in the lead based on the minority opinion. We should indicate that the recognition was given; we can even add that it is contested up to this day, but we can't just not mention it in the lead, or else we risk having drive-by editors who will keep adding back that "Quebec is a nation" in the lead. To, me this fact needs to be in the lead. The only I see we can avoid long-term issues such as we've been having every couple of months for the last eigh or nine months is for us all to agree on putting something in the intro about the motion, making sure it is NPOV and impossible to wrongly interpret.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply letting editors know, why Pgsylv was banned from this article. There's always a possibilty that editors would post here & get the erroneous impression Pgsylv was censured for his views. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::I've another idea (though it's sorta harsh). We do not have the 'motion' in the introduction (thus lining this article up, with the other Canadian province articles). Then, each editor (registered or not) who edits in to the lead, the 'motion' or something like it? - should be given a stern warning not to do it again. If they do it again?, they will get 'blocked'. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've scratched out my good intentioned 'suggestion'. Having sat back & reviewed it, it seems to hint at censurship. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I warn you that I cannot and will not be part of such a consensus. I believe I've been rather flexible until now, on the precise wording and location within the intro of the sentece, but I believe not mentioning the nationhood issue and warning people not to mention lest they be blocked is an attempt at owning the article. One cannot control the article in such a fashion; rather, I'd propose a wording that will satisfy the existing spectrum of viewpoints.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I told you it was a harsh suggestion, but it's only a suggestion. Anyways, will you consider the possibilty that having the 'motion' in the lead? is more trouble then it's worth? I'm acceptable to having it included or excluded? Howabout you? GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that excluding altogether is acceptable, although I'm open to discussion as to where in the lead it should be.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your response. Your inflexibility (which I was unaware of, until now) concerning the Quebecois motion's location in the article? isn't helpful. Perhaps it's best I depart this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, are you insisting that the House motion be in the lead or just that Quebecois nationalism in general be mentioned there? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mention can be implicit, depending on the wording used. But I feel that the nationhood (for whoemever it applies) should be mentioned as more than just the opinion of some nationalists as it did gain official, albeit symbolic recognition through the passing of the motion. That's my point. Hope it's reasonable enough. --Ramdrake (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The motion is a minor event that everyone interprets differently. It skirts the issue of more powers being devolved to Quebec. The fact is, nationhood for Quebec is a highly politicized issue that is inherently POV. That is why the Bloc and Conservatives have diametricly opposite view of the meaning and significance of the Quebecois nation motion. --soulscanner (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you're entitled to your POV. But you cannot impose this POV on all editors. There are those of us who see the motion in a different light. Please remember that WP isn't about the truth, it's about presenting the different, significant viewpoints. The Harper motion is a factual event, which was hailed by many within and outside Canada as something of some significance. It is viewed by many as an event totally outside the autonomist revendications of Quebec, as a recognition of the cultural identity of Quebecers. It is important to a lot of people, for admittedly different reasons, but its symbolic importance is undeniable. I maintain it must be mentioned in the lead, somehow.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is excatly what I'm proposing here: I'm saying that Harper's, Dion's, Duceppe's, Dumont's, and other significant points be summarized. The importance of the event is marginal; it is not as significant as the two refernda or the failure of the Meech Lake accord for example; that is not POV. Please show evidence that this event is more important to mention than these when it comes to understanding modern Quebec. As it sands, I think one can understand Quebec without even mentioning the motion. --soulscanner (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The House motion does not refer to the province

If people are going to keep bringing up the House motion in every discussion, please not that the motion was very careful to say that the Québécois are a nation, not the province of Quebec. Both Harper and Dion said that they were referring to the cultural group; the nation in question consists of the Francophone cultural group founded 400 years ago living along the St. Lawrence, not to every person living within the province of Quebec; there is a very big difference. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In full agreement AG. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Arctic Gnome. Firstly, there is a consensus here that Quebec (the territory) hasn't been recognized as a nation, as the word "nation" refers to a group of people anyway. Second, if you re-read Harper's statement carefully, he did say that people who identify as Quebecois are included, therefore the term isn't restricted to the descendants of the French colonists only; personnally I know of a number of people in the Quebec Anglophone community who identify as Quebecois (some identify as Quebecois and Canadians, and see no contradiction - I feel much the same way they do). What we are trying to accomplish here is to get a wording down that will take these realities into account.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm always willing to accept the 'Quebecois motion' in the lead. However, I'll also accept it being out of the lead. It's too bad both sides of the issue can't be flexible about it (as I am). GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that I should have read the discussions in more depth before responding to all of the "Quebec is a nation" comments from every thread. For what it's worth, I think a phrase like "Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois nation." should be fair to both sides, maybe with a qualifier tagged onto it such as "It is also home to other cultural groups such as anglophone Canadians, aboriginals, Acadians, and various immigrant communities." In either case, I think such a line belongs in the lead, Quebecois nationalism is a very important part of the province's history. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most Quebec nationalists would object to this. Most political leaders would consider "Quebecois" to include all residents of Quebec. The reason is of course political. They wish to depict the Quebecois nation motion as a recognition of special status for the province, and as a wedge to legitimize legal claims to sovereignty. If you include this definition, you'll face accusations from some nationalists as depicting the Quebecois as racist. --soulscanner (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm disgusted. When I was in the last discussion over this topic (months ago), I admit I was being stubborn and letting my Federalist PoV, effect me. This time? I've been more NPOV in my views. Regretfully, we've got an established editor here (it's not you, Arctic Gnome) who steadfastly refuses to accept the 'Quebecois motion' in the lead & an established editor who steadfastly refuses to have the 'Quebecois motion' removed from the lead. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, FWIW, if consensus decides to forego mention of the nationhood motion in the lead, I will respect it. But I'd like to see a strong consensus emerege either way first.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Ramdrake. You've restored my hopes for a resolution, therefore I'm stickin' around. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Over the entire course of Quebec history, the motion is not a huge event and is likely not worthy of being in the lead. However, Quebecois nationalism in general does deserve to be there. It seems like a resonable compromise to mention the Quebecois nation in the lead, maybe phrased as an opinion, and explain the history of the debate leading up to the motion in the body. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any opposition to something about Quebec nationalism being mentioned in the lead, but I have seen a lot of personal POVs being bandied about as though they're fact. I am in support of something along the lines of your above suggestion, Artic; but there must be no attempts to define explicitly what the Quebecois nation is. --G2bambino (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with G2bambino on this, especially since Harper (who presented the motion) did not give a specific definition of Quebecois, although I would appreciate if the reference in the article did not refer to it as vague (I don't think it's vague - it's quite open to a degree of interpretation, though).--Ramdrake (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification, the editor who's against having the 'Quebecois motion' in the lead? has objections on the basis that the 'motion' pales in importants to the '1980 & 1995 referendums'. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment there. This motion is getting a lot of attention now, but the 80/95 referendums were far more important historically. The province almost broke away in 1995, and I think that's a little far significant than this motion. I think Arctic Gnome has the right idea of just having something about the importance of Quebecois nationalism in the lead, and then the motion in the general history. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec nation appears in lead

"Quebec nation" appears in the paragraph on Quebec nationalism and the sovereignty movement, and is explained in context. Ramdrake has objected that this makes the nationalist movement sound too small. Here is a slight rewording.

"Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement. All three provincial political parties advocate for greater autonomy and consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada. The Parti Quebecois government advocates for independence, and has organized (unsuccessful) referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995."

I think that is accurate and fair. It is stronger than mentioning the "Quebecois nation motion" because it emphasizes the POV of Quebec nationalists that Quebec (and not just the Quebecois) for a nation and leaves open the possibility that non-nationalists may disagree with it. It also puts it in the relevant political context. --soulscanner (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be picking nits, but you write that all three provincial political parties consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada, and then you supply the Hansard reference to the HoC motion. Problem is, the "within Canada" part isn't in the Quebec motion that I'm aware of (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and the reference should then point to the National Assembly's resolution on the nationhood of Quebec. However, I'm dubious, as I think the federal motion is probably the strongest of the two, even if it fails to precisely define "Quebecois" as it is recognition of nationhood from without, as opposed to from within. Think you can rework your proposal? Or would you like me to?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fact ( according to StatCan ) that 80% of Quebeckers recognize Quebec as a nation is enough to write in the lead that Quebec is a nation. This is my opinion, but I realize I'm far from the federalists POV editors of this article. It will be hard to reach a consensus I guess. And I think Royalguard is right: if the 95 referendum almost broke Canada, it means that Quebec is a nation. Thank You, Pgsylv (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should write in the lead that 100 % of political parties in Quebec recognize Quebec as a nation, just like the NDP, the Federal Liberals, The Bloc Québécois and the Tories, since it's a fact ( see the references above ). T Y Pgsylv (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Already says all three major political parties. That's 100%. The federal parties are different. They voted on the "Quebecois antion", which is a weaker statement than saying that Quebec is a nation. Harper explicitly denied that Quebec is a nation when questioned on the motion. I think the above is a fair statement of what Quebec nationalists believe. --soulscanner (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)--soulscanner (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I stress again, The HoC motion doesn't say 'Quebec is a nation'; it says the Quebecers are a nation. I also stress that the Federal Government's motion should be the 'motion' to use. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says the "Quebecois are a nation"; some (most nationalists) say it includes all Quebecers and extend to all Quebec and others (e.g. Harper) say it does not. It is a deliberate, vague wording introduced by Harper. The Bloc interpret this motion to mean that they Quebec is recognized as a nation:

"Duceppe went on to say it's a historic moment because "for the first time in history" the House of Commons is recognizing Quebec as a nation. Canada is the first country recognizing the Quebec nation -- that Quebecers form a nation -- and in the near future other countries will do so." [4]

This is the POV being pushed by some here. The main issue here is that Quebec nationalist believe that Quebec is a nation, including everyone who lives there. There's no doubt that this is POV, and it should be represented as such. The claims of this POV should be clear and honest, though. By an large, the Quebecois nation is synonymous with Quebec according to this POV. That is the main point of mainstream Quebec nationalist politicians; they seek more autonomy for the Quebec state.

If you include mention of the Quebec nation motion, you then need to explain the different interpretations of a relatively unimportant motion so that readers are not misled. That's why it's better to present the principle claims and objectives of Quebec nationalism rather than ambiguous, meaningless, symbolic motions of the House. --soulscanner (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, you seem to (perhaps unwittingly) performing a bit of sophistry here: first you define nationalism so that every Quebecer who thinks Quebec is a nation/Quebecers form a nation (either) is a "nationalist". Then, you ascribe to them goals such as "wanting more powers for Quebec, eventually seeking autnomy and/or independance". These are all goals of sovereignists, not nationalists. The way you have your definitions out, one must make a difference between a nationalist (who only believes Quebecers to form a nation) and a sovereignist (who has further goals, eventually leading to independance). The best demonstration that, according to your definitions, not all nationalists are sovereignists is that 78% of Quebecers think Quebec (or its people) form a nation, whereas two referendums have each gathered less than 50% support. Therefore, there is a difference: there should be about 30+% of Quebecers out there who think Quebecers form a nation, but have no desire to leave Canada (and I don't think there's anything wrong with that). Presenting the nationalist movement (as you define it) and then basically confusing it with the sovereignist movement, I don't think helps the reader.--Ramdrake (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no sophism here. Nationalists want more autonomy for Quebec; Mario Dumont, for example, calls himself an "autonomist", seeking to get more powers for Quebec within the federation. The same holds for the provincial Liberals. These aren't state secrets; it's all in the Allaire Report back in the early 1990's when Meech Lake collapsed.

"1991 Jan. 29 - The Allaire Report is submitted. Its content is to constitute the new provincial constitutional position of the Liberal Party. Massive decentralisation in 22 areas is proposed."[5]

This remains the official constitutional position of the Provincial Liberals and was used by the Bourassa government to negotiate the Charlottetown Accord. A devolution of powers has been the core demand of Quebec nationalists for decades, including Duplessis and Lesage (who also wanted more powers for Quebec but remained federalist). It is the belief that these powers should be concentrated in the National Assembly that defines Quebec nationalism. To nationalists, the L'Etat de Quebec (i.e. the province) is a civic nation because it is able and willing to to act autonomously in these 22 areas of government, based on the francophone culture of the majority. Whether 80% of Quebecers believe this is irrelevant. It is still POV. The other 20% of Quebecers and the majority of Canadians who think otherwise deserve to have their views respected too. Polls showing the opinions of Quebecers and Canadians are beside the point, an do not add to the explanation of what the real issues are. --soulscanner (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your view. But can't you recognize that there is a large number of Quebecers who only want recognition for their people as a nation without necessarily wanting more prowers from the federal government? You seem to conceive of the nationhood issue as inseparable from the sovreignty issue when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there are many who associate both, buth there are also many who don't see a specific relationship between the two.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that. 100% of the provincial parties want some devolution of political powers to Quebec, the same ones who support the various motions on Quebec nationhood. I think you are largely speaking for yourself here. The motion was originally brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, after all, and all motions regarding natinhood were brought forward by the Parti Quebecois. They se this issue as a political tool. This needs to be explained when discussiong the nationhood issue. --soulscanner (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, explain it in the corpus of the text, where the nationohood motion is discussed in more detail. Whatever political connections you see to this recognition can be expanded upon lower in the text, but mention of the motion is, I believe, and for all the reasons I've mentioned so far, warranted in the lead of the text. I'm not particular as to how it is mentioned; I just find it important (as did the French, Spahnish and German versions of WP, among others) that it be mentioned.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is near-universal acceptance that the Quebecois ethno-cultural group is a nation, but there is debate about whether the province of Quebec is a nation. We could probably clearly explain that distinction in the lead without taking up much space. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is extremely controversial. I recommend going to the talk page at the Talk:Quebecois article and the following discussion here on whether the Quebecois page should be deleted. Many argued explicitly that "Quebecois" meant anyone from Quebec, not just people who identified as such or were French Canadian, and that there was no need for such an article, just as there is no need for Ontarian or Albertan. The conclusion was that Quebecois should not denote an ethno-cultural group on Wikipedia, presumably, because the ethno-cultural was too contraversial or marginal. Because of this, it was decided that the usual "ethnic" box you find on articles like these should not be allowed on that page. I actually argued for this definition, but was basically shouted down. In good faith, knowing the situation, I cannot sanction that usage here. It would implicitly undermine the principle nationalist assertion in Quebec that it is all the people of the province, and not just French Canadians, that constitute the nation. This directly contradicts the definition you are putting forth, which is also POV. Any way you look at it, the definition is highly politicized and susceptible to POV. It is a complex issue, and it was decided by consensus that the Quebecois page was precisely the place to explain these complex issues. --soulscanner (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the existence of the Quebecois as a nation is controversial? That seems to be the point you're now making. It is your contention that the motion is unimportant. Fine, that's your POV. I can assure you that this motion is very important to many, many Quebecers, enough to be in the lead.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Those issues look like they could be solved by disambiguation. We just have to be clear when we are talking about Québécois the ethnic group and when we are talking about Québécois the citizenship. The same would apply for many other terms, like "Italian" of "Scottish". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When Quebec nationalists talk about the Quebecois nation, they are talking about citizenship. When Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are talking about it, they are talking about identity. That is precisely the problem.

As I posted above, Gilles Duceppe says it's about citizenship:

"Duceppe went on to say it's a historic moment because "for the first time in history" the House of Commons is recognizing Quebec as a nation. Canada is the first country recognizing the Quebec nation -- that Quebecers form a nation -- and in the near future other countries will do so." [6]

And really, when the motion is so ambiguous, who an say one is wrong and the other right?

Moreover, Quebec nationalists claim that English Canadian definitions regarding the Quebecois as an ethnic group is an attempt to smear them as balkan ethnic nationalists as opposed to being inclusive civic nationalists. They don't want anyone using that definition at all. Using this definition here will create more animosity. Again, I encourage you to examine the discussions on the Quebecois page. You don't need to read many to get an idea of what the issues are. --soulscanner (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We all have to face the possibility, that having the 'motion' in the lead isn't an absolute need. To have it removed from the lead, isn't going to bring the world to an end. We must all consider that option, people. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To not have it in the lead is inviting drive-by editors to add whatever they feel the wording should be to the lead. By putting it ourselves in the lead, with a neutral, agreed-upon wording would prevent that. However, there first needs to be a consensus one way or another. So far, I've heard less than a half-dozen opinions on this, over a widely differing spectrum, so I don't think there is a consensus either way.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, one could also argue the same about putting in the lead. There needs to be a strong consensus that a statement in the lead sentence is factual reflects a broad spectrum of opinion and a strong consensus which there never was. As a matter of fact, the issue only appeared because of banned user with a single-purpose account. One could argue that including the nation issue in the lead sentence appeases this type of behavior on wikipedia. The aguement can work both ways. --soulscanner (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, as things stand today, there seems to be some sort of agreement to put something in the lead (see GoodDay's, G2Bambino's and Arctic Gnome's interventions of today). You seem to be the only one who feel strongly about not putting anything in the lead; likewise, I'm likely the editor here who feels most strongly something needs to be put in the lead regarding nationhood. Is there some way we can convince you not to oppose the inclusion of the mention of the motion in the lead?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A simple press of the 'undo', will handle the 'drive-by editors', those types of editors are easily dealt with. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. A serious editor will come by and re-launch the discussion on the talk page. On another note, I see that the French version of Wikipedia seems to have resolved its debate over the inclusion of nationhood in the article, and they are going to align with most of the other major European-language versions of WP (German, Spanish, etc.). If they all mention in in the lead why can't we? If the French, the Spanish and the German versions find this important enough to put in the lead (after a debate, at least in the case of the French WP) why is deemed not important enough for here? Are we using a different standard?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point Ramdrake. I wish it could be that easy (again remember I've no problem with the 'motion' being in the lead or being out of the lead). I might be (trying not to pat myself on the back) the most neutral editor in this discussion, concerning 'motion' location. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that (your neutrality). And again, should there be a consensus not to include the motion, I will respect it. But so far, I don't see any consensus. Mostly, a single editor trying to push his POV onto the others (and admittedly, I'm pushing back).--Ramdrake (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This may take awhile to resolve. I wonder if going to Mediation is an option? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To User:GoodDay: let me try to sum up how I see this: I see two diametrally opposed viewpoints. One extreme is: no mention whatsoever of Quebec nationhood in the lead (seems to be Soulscanner's position), and the other extreme is: explicit mention that "Quebec is a nation" in the lead (Pgsylv's position). Through this all, I've been trying to advocate some kind of middle-ground position: to mention (somewhere in the lead, and with a phrasing which I'm open to discuss) that a federal motion recognized that the Quebecois form a nation. This is relevant to the Quebec article because, obviously, Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois (unless someone wants to dispute that fact?). Therefore I'd like you to understand that, from where I sit, my position isn't an extreme at all, but some sort of compromise. That even this attempt at compromise should be rejected baffles me. And yes, I'm open to informal mediation (or formal mediation, although I see it as a further step if informal mediation fails).--Ramdrake (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is more than one or two viewpoints here. You have to be careful not to demonize a position as extreme because the person who holds it violates wiki policies. Pgsylv POV was perfectly valid, and I've always recognized it as such. As a matter of fact, all major political figures in Quebec adopt his position that Quebec is a civic nation, and that mebership in the Quebecois nation is a question of citizenship in Quebec. That of course, is only one POV and I do not necessarily agree with it, but it is not an extreme position, but the common one Quebec that needs to summarized as such to treat this fairly. The problem with Pgsylv is that he was trying to present his position as an objective fact and not attributing it to sources.

Another position, adopted by Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, and many in English Canada, is that the Quebecois nation is based on an identification with Quebec's French-speaking culture. This is actually the one I hold personally, but I have to concede that most francophone Quebecers do not see it that way. They see this view as reducing their main identity to a definition that could clearly apply to "leaf's nation" or "Red Sox" nation as well. What most nationalists want to see is recognition as a civic nation. I fully understand this concern, and any fair treatment of this issue requires that this concern of the majority in Quebec be addressed.

A third position was expressed by Michael Chong when he resigned from he Tory cabinet over the issue and also by Arctic Gnome above. This definiton holds that the "Quebecois" are essentially an ethnic group, French Canadians living in Quebec, and that according to this definiton, the motion recognizes a dangerous ethnic nationalism. This opinion indeed seems the most common in English canada: According to a poll taken at the height of he debate over Quebec nationhood, only 38% of English speakers agreed that Quebecers are a nation. [7]

As for Ramdrake's postion, as much as I may sympathize with it and wish it were the common one in Quebec, it is not the common view in Quebec among francophones. If it were, the constitutional issue would be behind us. I have yet to see a prominent figure in Quebec politics adopt the position that this issue is divorced from the balance of power within Confederation. Bill 101, the patriation of the Constitution, the two referendums, the Charlottetown Accord, Meech Lake, and all previous contstitutional dust ups were precisely about the balance of powers needed to preserve the distinct francophone culture in Quebec; the two subjects are inseperable. I'd like to find a reference from a prominent francophone in Quebec who expresses this view. --soulscanner (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of extremism. I haven't called on the 'motion' being removed from the article itself (only that its being removed from the lead, is a possibility). As you've pointed out, there's no consensus being reached on anything - thus my reasons for suggesting going to 'Mediation'. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranmdrake: this is a good summary of what's going on. Thus, as is always best, in my mind, something in the middle is what we're striving for - isn't that so typically bland and Canadian? ;) Anyway, I saw that some days ago you attempted to restore a previous version of a description of the nation issue to the lead. It's interesting you did this, as I composed that particular sentence, and was about to raise the possibility of it again being the compromise we're looking for. I think most of us are okay with a brief mention of the nation issue in the lead, with more elaborate detail further in the article, and even more in a dedicated article on its own; Soulscanner... well, I won't get into what Soulscanner can be.

The way the opening used to read was:

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada, and the only province that is the homeland of a people recognized as a nation by the House of Commons.[8]

It might be slightly altered to say:

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada. The province is the only one that is the homeland of a people recognized as a nation by the House of Commons,[9] as well as the only one that has been recognized as a nation by its own legislative house.

Alternately, one could say:

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada. Nationalism plays a large part in the politics of the province, both internally and in relations with the rest of the country; though various motions have been passed in both the federal and Quebec legislative houses regarding this issue,[10] there is no clear, official, or unanimous definition of nationhood in this regard.

Other tweaks and variations could be made, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your first version G2, infact I'm endorsing it. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm OK with either formulation.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these are acceptable because they do not address the issues brought up by various editors above. I would like these concerns to be adressed:

*Putting the motion in lead promotes the quebecois nation motion as a major event when it is in fact a minor event in Quebec history; it puts an unimportant motion above events and facts about Quebec that are far more significant (Meech Lake, francophone majority, civil law, etc.)

* It skirts the real issue of the devolution of powers and recognition as a civic nation that most francophone Quebecers seek

* In which province or country on wikpedia are political issues discussed before geography, boundaries, population stats, etc? What justifies mentioning a contentious political issue before these descriptors? --soulscanner (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be more focussed: Can anyone tell me how the Quebecois nation motion is more important than the 1980 and 1995 referenda? --soulscanner (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on, Soulscanner? Let's adopt G2bambino's first version & get this article unlocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange; one would think a person questioning the importance of the motions compared to the referenda would endorse the third of my options; the referenda were, after all, a nationalist issue.

Further, examples of province/country/region articles that have political/nationalist information in the lead: Basque Country (historical territory), Northern Ireland, Republic of China, Tibet, Jammu and Kashmir, andSomaliland. --G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if we agree to put politics in the lead sentence, let's do it in a way that fairly depicts Quebec nationalism. I have no problem with the page being unlocked, provided we resolve this issue here before making any new edits to the lead sentence. --soulscanner (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's try the following. It addresses the above concerns. I still don't like the the idea of launching into politics in the lead sentences, but we need to end this. --soulscanner (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal I of lead

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada. It is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. Quebec has an strong and active nationalist movement. All three provincial political parties advocate for greater autonomy and consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada. The Parti Quebecois government advocates for independence, and has organized referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995." The Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within Canada in 2006.

IMO, you don't need "strong and active" as each presupposes the other, so choose one, and "{unsuccessful)" has to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! --soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit overloaded. Am I guessing correctly (Soulscanner)? you won't accept the 'motion' in the lead without the referendoms & the nationlist stuff? GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's overly complex and has too much detail for the lead. Something like the following would, in my opinion, be better:

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada. It is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. Nationalism plays a large part in the politics of the province, with greater autonomy sought by all political parties,[11] two referenda on independence since 1980, and a recognition of nationhood for "the Quebecois" and the province by the federal and provincial legislatures, respectively.

--G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the gist of it. Quebec nationalism and sovereignty movements need to be fairly represented, as they explain the context and motivation for the symbolic motions. I think some of the above condensing is good, but I think we need to give a sense that the mainstream Quebec nationalist movement seeks recognition as a civic nation, not an ethnic one. This is a POV, and I am ambivivalent about whether this claim is entirely accurate, but most nationalists in Quebec see it that way and we have to be fair to these claims and not depict them from our POV. So a few more tweaks:

Consensus version 1

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the central part of Canada. It is the sole Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population and where French is the only official language at the provincial level. Nationalism plays a large role in the politics of the province, with all three major provincial political parties seeking greater autonomy and recognition of the Quebec people as a nation.. Sovereignist governments held referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995, and the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Quebecois as a nation within Canada".

---

I think the National Assembly motion recognized "Quebecers" (i.e. all Quebecers) as being part of the nation, so that adds a complication. I'm hoping rolling it into recognition as a nation sought satisfies as an alusion to the National Assembly resolution. It would be nice to find a link to this motion. --soulscanner (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the National Assembly motion: [12]. Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the original at the National Assembly record of Votes and Procedings:

"THAT the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Québec form a nation." [13]

I incorporated the reference and the English wording into the text above. I think this is important, because it has a slightly different meaning than the Harper motion. In any case, both wordings follow their respective legal texts. We probably should add more references, but those can be added later.

I don't object to putting the above in the lead paragraph, but I have grave misgivings about it. It opens up the page to vandalism from new editors who do not agree with the wording. I think it should be left in a later paragraph in the lead so as not to overemphasize political issues. However, if editors feel strongly that it is more useful in the lead, I'll consent to it and we can move the page to semi-protect. Is everyone ok with the above wording? --soulscanner (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would put my support behind it, save for a few very minor modifications to slim it down a little; I'm still worried about excess detail in the lead.

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada. It is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language at the provincial level. Nationalism plays a large part in the politics of the province, demonstrated by the seeking of greater autonomy and recognition of the Quebec people as a nation by all three major provincial political parties; two referendums on independence held by Sovereignist governments since 1980; and the passage by the Canadian House of Commons of a symbolic motion recognizing the "Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada."

--G2bambino (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a little; I got rid of the 2006 part, and changed a sentence to a more economical active voice. I'd really like to retain the links to the two referenda. I already think that there are important details omitted: The patriation of the Constitution, Meech Lake, and the Clarity Act, for example, all of which are considerably more significant legally and historically than the 2006 motion. There will be sovereignists that want to add these to the lead, with some justification. This is part of the reason I don't want politics included in the lead. Every editor will want to add their own detail. That being said (sorry for repeating myself), is the new version okay? --soulscanner (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If excess detail is a worry, then why not just say "nationalism plays a large part in the politics of the province," and leave it at that? Detail, and there probably is a lot of it, can be amply covered elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree to that one (it's the point I've been making all along), but the other editors won't. Ramdrake said that this depiction underemphasizes the importance of nationalism in Quebec (that's my impression); that's why I added the part about the three parties. I've pretty much conceded this point of brevity to Ramdrake. I suppose the main concern now is that the "nation" issue is treated fairly, and presents the most relevant POV's neutrally. Your point about the importance of brevity is well taken, though. I suppose brevity will be sacrificed in the name of neutrality whenever political issues are emphasized. --soulscanner (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Support For the record, I support Soulscanner's latest proposal. I feel it's a decent compromise of all the various positions.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm okay with it, too. Minor suggestion: "held" rather than "organized" seems like the more commonly-used verb for the referendum line, it seems to me, a la "...governments have held referendums." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --soulscanner (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I support it as well. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support For the record, I do too, with noted reservations. --soulscanner (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Addresses my concerns, provides context for the concept of "nation" in Quebec. Good work - sorry I couldn't participate more. A few small tweaks, purely for flow - can we consider:

  "It is the sole Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population, and where French is the only official language at the provincial level. Nationalism plays a large role in the politics of the province, with all three major provincial political parties seeking greater autonomy and recognition of the Quebec people as a nation."

  Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorporated. Improved flow. --soulscanner (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should explicitly write that all political parties from Quebec recognize Quebec as a nation, since it's true ( QS, PV, PCC, ... ) . 132.208.198.80 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And I think its a POV to write:"... three major provincial political parties seeking greater autonomy and recognition of the Quebec people as a nation" for 2 reasons:

PQ is for independance, so it's not seeking "greater" autonomy, it's seeking "total" autonomy. Then, the Liberal party is more then ambiguous on what they want for Quebec since they refuse to re open the debate over the Constitution. Finaly, ADQ is " autonomist " .... well, maybe those are seeking for greater autonomy but it's not clear. For those 3 reasons, I think you should stick to the facts.132.208.198.80 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by " Nationalism" plays a role ? It's a non-sens, Nationalism doesn't play a role ! 132.208.198.80 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll support either, but I much prefer soulscanner unamended version. The amended one sounds a bit more awkward in its sentence structure. Also, I think that historically and politically Quebec is better described as part of Central Canada than Eastern Canada, though both are technically true. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the first version incorporates a little of all suggestions made above; it's not really my original posting. --soulscanner (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I support it then. However, I highly recommend changing eastern Canada to central Canada. While the former is often used today (especially in western Canada), I think that "central Canada" better reflects Quebec's place in Canada historically and politically (i.e., being part of the Province of Canada and being dominant in population). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny, as a Quebecer, I've always considered Quebec as part of Eastern Canada. "Central Canada" to me is Ontario and Manitoba. But I'll go with whatever the consensus says on this.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Us Westerners always think of Manitoba as ours, and Ontario and Quebec as Central Canada. The compromise looks solid to me, and should help ease some of the tensions here, I hope. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From a historical and political standpoint, Manitoba is part of western Canada. The term eastern Canada is ambiguous; it can either mean everything that is not western Canada or just mean the Atlantic provinces. The term Central Canada is a very important concept since both of the central Canadian provinces were part of the Province of Canada and both have been very dominant politically for a long time. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support This fits in what I have been supporting throughout this talkpage. Go for it when it looks good!Pieuvre (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note here that according to our own WP, Quebec is both in Eastern Canada (defined as anything east of Manitoba) and in Central Canada (part of Eastern Canada, defined as Quebec+Ontario). So, which is more used, "Eastern Canada" (as opposed to Western Canada) or Central Canada (as opposed to Maritimes and Western Canada)?--Ramdrake (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In probably depends on where a speaker is from and when a given source was written; today's Western Canadians are probably far more likely to group the rest of Canada together as "Eastern Canada" than anyone else, though you could find examples of both terms being used everywhere. My argument is that when talking about the history and politics of Quebec (and to a lesser extent its geography and culture) relative to the rest of Canada, the "Central Canada" label better describes it's place in the federation. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed procedure after consensus on lead

It looks like we're heading for a consensus here. We agree that the Quebecois nation motion can be put in the lead, and that the lead will mention the importance of Quebec nationalism; it seems a question of wording right now. These topics will make the lead more prone to POV pushing and drive-by vandals. We thus need a strong consensus to do this. I propose the following procedure:

• Hammer out a final consensus version in lead paragraph above among current participants.
• Leave this final version for a week to allow other editors who are not currently active to comment; lets show respect for those who have contributed here but currently don't have the time to participate; no one likes to go away and find major changes while they were gone
• Pledge among current participants to make the case for the final version to those who are skeptical as a good compromise
• Revert any new changes to the lead sentence and politely refer editors to discussion page
• Focus on Fixing article below. --soulscanner (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be consensus on soulscanner's version of the lead, I am going to unlock this page. Hopefully we can all play nice. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - although I'd suggest going to semi-protection rather than wide open. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd give openness a chance, this is after all only B-class, so we need the help. I put a notice to not change the lead, but if it turns out that I've been overly trusting of IP editors, I'll put it back to semi-protect. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor link change

Could someone with editing rights please change this? Under the Language section, Allophones should point to to Allophone (Quebec). Darobsta (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor link change

Could someone with editing rights please change this? Under the Language section, Allophones should point to to Allophone (Quebec). Darobsta (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Imprecision

The general tone is reducer (réducteur).

« French is the only official language on the provincial level ». (Why precise « on provincial level » ? The article is about a province. An official language of a province is of provincial level. No ? The author implies that this fact is not that important, because in the great big rest of the country, it's insignificant)

« significant English-speaking minority ». (8%) is not that significant. Though this minority is really really important historically and economically, and that the french respect the anglos, that's not the way I would phrase it. Why put adjectives, just expose the fact. It always sounds like, don't worry, the frenchies are not that important. Why always that need to reduce the frenchies to what some of the English majority would like them to believe, that they exist in spite of what the majority would wish.

« English is widely spoken ». Again, adjective result in imprecision, that tone again.

« civil law, also remain strong ». remain, it has been the law for 466 years, and will be for ever. Do the author thinks common law will, hopefully, be enforced one day in Quebec at last ? That tone again.

« nationalist movement that advocates for greater autonomy ». Wrong. The nationalist movement advocates for independence. There is also political parties that are federalist and nationalist that advocates (at least) for protection of the nation in the constitution.

« nationalist movement considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada ». Wrong. This movement considers Quebec a country in the making and its constituent, a people, and yes, why not, a nation (sociologically speaking). It's the House of Commons that considers the Québécois a nation (which is a good minimum after so much efforts just to be recognize. Having the right and the responsability the defend our existence should take another 100 years. How do the majority thinks the french could feel that Canada is also their country ? ; the National Assembly also consider the people of Québec a nation (not the nationalist movement, as the author said).

« Quebec has adapted itself to function effectively ». That tone again. Like if the québécois are just a bunch of morons that surprisingly have manage to adapted themselves out of middle age economy.

Please, rephrase those points in the next version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.1.251 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I had initially questioned the phrase on the provincial level, as well, but I think the reasoning behind that is that for all federal departments, agencies and federally chartered corporations in Quebec, English remains an official language. 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, for certain municipalities in Quebec, English retains its official status?Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of those need to change, but not all of them. I think the phrase "on the provincial level" is important to let readers know that federal institutions are officially bilingual. I also don't have a problem with the line about civil law "remaining" because the fact that it has remained when the rest of the country uses a different system is fairly impressive; I don't think the writer was implying the demise of the system. For the lines that overemphasis the size of the anglo population, maybe it should say that there are specific regions with a significant anglo population. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

« ... with all three major provincial political parties seeking (...) recognition ». That has been done, it is recognized. Why would they still seek that ? The intro is still significantly subjective.--96.20.9.81 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the lead

Just noticed that part of the first paragraph of the lead (the one about it being the only province with French as its sole official language) is redundant with the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the intro. Since there is consensus not to unilaterally change the intro, I'm bringing this issue here so we can discuss it and find a proper consensual solution.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the 2 should definitely be removed. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the fourth paragraph goes into more detail on the language issue, maybe it should be phrased as a reminder rather than as stating a new fact, such as "While French is the official language, there are..." --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact we've just established a consensus for the opening paragraph, I'd like to propose we tweak or eliminate the fourth one. Here is the existing first paragraph:

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the central part of Canada. It is the sole Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population and where French is the only official language at the provincial level. Nationalism plays a large role in the politics of the province, with all three major provincial political parties seeking greater autonomy and recognition of the Quebec people as a nation.. Sovereignist governments held referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995, and the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Quebecois as a nation within Canada".

Here is the fourth paragraph:

Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French-speaking and where French is the only official language on the provincial level. However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada. There have been (unsuccessful) referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995.

I've stricken out the text in the fourth paragraph that is already covered in the lead; if we take this approach, where should we put what's left? --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it might be best to integrate what's left of the fourth paragraph into the first paragraph?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec ([kebɛk]) is a province in the central part of Canada. It is the sole Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population and where French is the only official language at the provincial level. However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec.

Nationalism plays a large role in the politics of the province, with all three major provincial political parties seeking greater autonomy and recognition of the Quebec people as a nation.. Sovereignist governments held referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995, and the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Quebecois as a nation within Canada".

I've integrated Ckatz's unstricken part to the first paragraph as per Ramdrake and made everything on Nationalism into its own 2nd paragraph. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Personnally, I'd say this flows better. I'd support it unless someone comes up with an even better solution.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to define Montreal the first time it is used by saying "...especially in Montreal, the province's largest city". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I think that expanding on Montreal the first time would be good to for those outside of Canada who can't digest the whole language debate (heck, we have enough trouble and we live here!) -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll cut it off the way the paragraph is suggested above and you can add the part on Montreal if nobody else objects. If I was too quick to edit, feel free to revert. I won't take the reversion personally. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RoyalGuard, " would be good to for those outside of Canada who can't digest the whole language debate (heck, we have enough trouble and we live here! " This is a POV and it souldn't be considered in this discussion. 70.83.226.185 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP 70.83.226.185 should be blocked, as it's Pgsylv. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv's block has expired, so he is now free to edit under his username, or if he wants to abandon it, as an IP. However, any further disruption from either Pgsylv or 70.83.226.185 will result in a total IP ban for a longer period of time. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether he is using his IP or his account, blocked or unblocked, Pgsylv is banned from making any edits to this talkpage and its corresponding article. nat.utoronto 03:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted; although if he decides to post on this talk page with a civil tone, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out, albeit with a very short leash. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes I hope will be uncontroversial. Also, at the moment, the lead says this: However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. I find that redundant. I propose: However, there is a significant English-speaking minority, concentrated in Montreal. Joeldl (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Québécois nation

According to wikipedia, Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois nation. I think we should write it right away at the beginning. 70.83.226.185 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence of the second paragraph, how much more "at the beginning" do you want it? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon seems to be a single purpose user who's been suspected of being the currently blocked User:Pgsylv. Perhaps an IP block is necessary? --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

At least the IP is going to the talk page now. If someone gives them a final warning on their talk page and they vandalize an article afterwards I'll do an IP block. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to understand that Quebec is a unilingual nation and that it is not racist to say that, 80 % of Quebeckers recognize it. 180 nations are unilingual in the world, I guess it's the norm. There are 1 million english in France, do we mention it on the article France ? Yes, but not at the beginning. You guys don't respect the facts. It makes me think of the Chinese government with the tibetans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to block a certain 'single purpose' IP address. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked for a month with account creation disabled. It had to be done, but it's still too bad; he did have some legitimate concerns that we could have discussed, if only he learnt to discuss them with a bit more civility. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That guy is right, there are minorities in other nations, but the articles don't mention them at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.160.210 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

False Copyvio warning

The entire article is a copyright violation and must be blanked and oversighted immediately. MoonGlare (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that all 4916 edits to this article have been copyvios. Could you please tell us the source from which you think this entire article is copied? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see some proof or a link or something that says this is a copyvio. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The user MoonGlare (talk) has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism, and this warning is a false one. Think no more of it. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 13:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The

Per WP:HEAD, the word "the" should be avoided in section and sub-section headings. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See Also section

Anybody else feel that this section is excessively large with many items that could be moved to Lists of Quebec-related topics? Vrac (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be just a little large. A couple really don't belong there or should be moved to Lists of Quebec-related topics. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

People from Quebec are called...?

Quebecians? That does not sound right... Ehccheehcche (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could say Quebecois (with an accent in there somewhere), but then we'd have to re-open the debate on whether they are a cultural nation or a political nation, and whether or not the term applies to everyone in Quebec or just to Francophones. I think Quebecers could work without provoking a sovereigntist uprising. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They're called Québecois for both Vernacular and Nation specific and Quebecers to be more geo-politically inclusive. --DynV (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am from Quebec and I use only the word Quebecer. When used in English, Québécois usually implies reference to French-speaking Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I always say "Québecois". I've never heard anybody say "Quebecer," and in any case that word doesn't sound pleasing to the ear at all, so I myself would never use it in any context. That's just my personal preference. 72.39.148.218 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in Quebec all my life and "Quebecker" is pretty much the word of choice for most Anglophones. When someone refers to him or her self as Quebecois, it implies more than just having been born or grown up in the province, it implies that you are part of the Quebec nation. That being said, you will never hear a Francophone say Quebecker since you are either Quebecois or you are not, there is no real gray area. I find that often people will cling to other identities such as Canadian, Italian, Irish, Polish, etc., instead of describing themselves as Quebeckers. Of course everyone is free to their own opinion but in my experience the two words have very different connotations and it would not be accurate or appropriate to single out either of them as a catch all term when referring to the people of Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul menard5 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

city names

Québec vernacular city names NEED accents when appropriate. If this seem insufficient, you may add a standardized version in parenthesis with the first occurrence.

How would you feel if I made an article about your hometown in a language not officially used in it and I'd modified its name to be more appropriate in that language ? I don't know about you but my name can be translated and I dislike it when people do that. --DynV (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Certain cities in Quebec (and the province itself) have had their names rendered a certain way in English for centuries. Montreal and Quebec (City) do not have accents because, foremost, English-speakers have been writing them without accents for a very long time. Their pronunciations are also markedly different from how they're rendered in French. It's the same with other foreign cities like Rome, Moscow, Athens, etc.

The analogy also extends to cities and places with English names rendered in French, such as Londres, Philadelphie, Floride, Californie, etc. G. Csikos, 1 June 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.153 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quebec is a nation

Hi. Quebec is a nation, and you have to write it at the beginning. There is a canadian bias in this article and it should minimized. Quebec is a nation and its language is french. The other anglophones are canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.44.25 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And what you are saying is that we should write the article from a complete Quebec bias. The Quebecois are a nation (the people the last time I checked, wether that means French or anyone in Quebec is unknown because it wasn't specified). We've already fought over the lead and this is what we decided. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. While the Quebecois are indeed a nation "within a united Canada", it is not universally agreed that Quebec is a nation. It is certainly false and racist to say that Francophones belong to the nation of Quebec and Anglophones to the nation of Canada. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian as an ethnic origin

Since when is Canadian an ethnic origin? Unless it means Native americans, these are the only people who are ethnically from this area. If it means people who can trace ancestery back a few generations in Canada, that doesn't make them "ethnically canadian". They are of European descent, and should not be classed as ethnically Canadian. Canadian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Does that mean if someones ancesters came from China but they are say fourth generation Canadian that this makes them Ethnically Canadian? Come on, it is the same for Australia. Only the indigenous people are ethnically Australian, the rest are "recent" settlers, over the last few hundred years.194.46.243.238 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are the results from Canada's 2006 census. I don't think it implies exactly as an ethnicity, but rather as self-identification. Pieuvre (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, self identification does lead to weird answers sometimes. See also Jedi "religion". -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no census question about the "ethnicity" of the respondents to the Canadian census. There is however one asking about the ethnic or cultural origins of the ancestors of the respondent. Specifically, it asks:

17. What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?

An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent.

For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, East Indian, Irish, Cree, Mi'kmaq (Micmac), Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), Ukrainian, Dutch, Filipino, Polish, Portuguese, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Salvadorean, Somali, etc.

Specify as many origins as applicable using capital letters.

Prior to the 2001 census, "Canadian" was not listed as an example. This made perfect sense, however a right-wing lobby group from Ontario succeeded at having "Canadian" appear as first example, and consequently nullified the value of this answer entirely. For decades, the US Census bureau resisted similar pressures to have "American" as a choice in their census. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp, the examples listed in the census are chosen automatically based on the last census; no lobby group had anything to do with it (though they may have encouraged people to choose it as a response). In the 1991 census there were enough people who wrote in "Canadian" that it got onto the 1996 census at the end of the list. With it at the end of the list, enough people chose it the next year to bump it to first place. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually people who are Native put their actual heritage too (Dakota, Saulteaux, Métis, Lakota, Inuit, ect). I think Canada should exists at least several hundred years before "Canadian" is a real ancestry. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone has been in Canada for ten generations and no longer feels any connection to the places from which their ansestors came, it is irrelevant which country they specifically came from, they are for most intents and purposes Canadian first. When it does matter what colour their skin is, you can look up stats on the number of people identifying as visual minorities, which would be less effected by attachment to Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome: That is not true. It was the fifth most common in 1991, so was fifth in the list of 1996, which was a new list. Please read [14] and look at the questionnaire yourself here. There was a decision taken in 1996, and as with all political decisions, lobbies exercise pressure on officials to influence the outcome. Comparability was broken with past census information, so this was no simple decision. There was pressure on StatsCan for them to place "Canadian" in the example list. I wish I remembered the name of the lobby group. I'll search for it. In any case, scientific integrity should have prevented this from happening no matter the name of the lobby group. For many many censuses people have been writing "American" in the USA and "Canadian" in Canada and groups pushing for these changes. Nowhere as in Canada does this change lead to more ridiculous results, with Jean-Baptiste Charboneau picking "Canadien" because his ancestors are old-stock Franco-Catholic Quebecers from 18th century Beauce and John Smith picking "Canadian" because his ancestors are from 19th century Upper Canada. The value of that question is today null. Many people know about their genealogy tree nowadays. StatsCan could have gotten valuable information, while not destroying that question, by asking a second question about the number of generation(s) the person's families have been in Canada. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some value to knowing whether people identify themselves as Canadian, but the question becomes useless because different people are answering in different ways; some are talking about identity while others are talking about ethnicity. They could have gotten lots of valuable information if they split it into clearer questions along the lines of: 1) with what nationality they identify (with Canada or regional nationalities therein as acceptable answers), 2) where their family came before Canada (with "I don't know as an acceptable answer); 3) How long their family has been here; and 4) whether they consider themselves to be a visible minority. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stats Canada should just hire us ;) -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And where were they from before they were of European descent? I guess we should all choose Africa. DigitalC (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<--OK, let's quit being stupid. If you're born in Canada, you're of Canadian ethnic origin. Get over it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Huggle

The use of Huggle should be banned, as it prevents updating articles and prevents improvements. It promotes a big brother mentality which reminds me of the Hoover and Stalin eras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.153.8 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add to the article, you cannot do it from your own Original research. It must be cited with Reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Inncurate Aboriginal Status section

The Aboriginal Status section refers to Cencus Canada's numbers which are flawed because a few Aboriginal communities refuse to be counted. Although Aboriginal peoples do not pay taxes, they all opt into Quebec's free Health Care system. The Government of Quebec's Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones used the Health Ministry's data to count the Aboriginal peoples missing from Census Canada's numbers.

I therefore propose the following edit:

The 2004/2005 census counted a total resident and non-resident Amerindian and Inuit population of 82,824 and includes the following Aboriginal Nations:

- Abenakis		(pop: 2,048)
- Algonquian		(pop: 9,111)
- Attikameks		(pop: 5,868)
- Crees		(pop: 14,632)
- Huron-Wendats	(pop: 2,988)
- Innu (Montagnais)	(pop: 15,385)
- Malecites		(pop: 759)
- Micmacs		(pop: 4,865)
- Mohawks		(pop: 16,211)
- Naskapis		(pop: 834)
- Inuit		(pop: 10,054)
- Non Nation Status	(pop: 69)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiqueb (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)--Wikiqueb (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't let your political agenda lead you to write false "history".

I can see that there have been several attempts by people to abuse this encyclopedia article for political reasons. In my Univesity studies, I recall our professor saying that the local population did not show much interest in siding with the Americans when Washington invaded British North America. I was quite surprised to see that an individual wrote the passage such that it suggested that there was widespread support for the American side. For this reason, I looked into the matter. The writer puts a lot of stock in a quotation which asserts that approximately 800 Quebeckers joined the American side by fighting in the Canadian Regiments. After researching the matter, I see that most other sources I have seen put the figure at between 200-300 in the Canadian Regiments, with a majority being former anglophone Americans who had re-settled in Quebec. In other words, few francophone Quebecois would have been in the regiment, and the regiment was much smaller than the writer claimed. Obviously, the writer has a political motivation to write this pseudo-"history". He is most probably a separatist and wishes to propose the notion that way back when, the Quebecers always wanted to join the USA. But, this is a falsehood. It is a case of abusing history for a politcal agenda.

In the interest of academic integrety, we must put people like this in their place. They do us a big disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Lincoln (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Colour blindness in Québec

A couple years ago, my French Immersion class (as well as classes from other schools in my area) took a trip to Québec, and the tour guide told us that a significant percentage (I can't remember what number it was exactly) of the Québecois population is colour blind -- thus, the traffic lights were all different shapes (i.e. square, triangle, circle). I think that it's important to mention this somewhere (obviously the correct percentage will need to be obtained); and also to have a blurb, if possible, on why the number is so high in Québec; and to mention (in a bit more detail than I have here) the traffic lights that were made to accomodate this, possibly with a picture. Obviously I would do this myself, but I don't have enough editing experience and in any case don't know where it would go, what title it would fall under, etc. It doesn't seem to really fit anywhere yet, and there's no way I'm going to make a new section just so I can add a paragraph about colour blindness in Québec. I may be inexperienced, but I DO know that doing that isn't kosher. If a section is ever created where adding this thing about colour blindness would be relevant, it would be great if someone would put it in as soon as possible. 72.39.148.218 (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any studies that show a higher rate of colour blindness (daltonism) in Quebecers. The traffic lights are designed the way they are (shape- as well as color-coded, not everywhere but pretty much) to account for the colour-blind, but there aren't significantly more colour-blind people in Quebec than elsewhere that I'm aware of.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please ! That's stupidness talking again. Xenophobia against Québec people seems to be a way of life for many here. --Mekmtl 17:24, 24 June 2008 (EST)

You may wish to review WP:AGF. - DigitalC (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

your tour guide don't know anything, the rare studies about that show that the concentration of coulour blind is the same as anywhere, and anyways the majority of traffic lights doesnt use shape anymore now..... 24.122.143.182 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the tour guide was having a little fun with the anglos. lol --soulscanner (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

they usually do...on a trip to quebec city a few years back, my tour guide made a joke saying "welcome to quebec, please have your passports ready" as we were crossing the provincial boundary between ontario and qc. nat.utoronto 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I've seen the traffic lights in Quebec with their horizontal setup, twin red square lights, the round green and the diamond amber and I think to myself, "This is much easier for EVERYONE to see, why doesn't the world just adopt this setup?" It is vastly superior and doesn't require much adjustment. The colours still mean the same thing.

--Avro Bellow (talk) 23:09, 21 Sept 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have certainly provided more references than you have. You are assuming region 10 is both central and northern Quebec, which is patently false in the context of this Wikipedia entry. The sentence prior to my edit reads:

Most inhabitants live in urban areas near the Saint Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City, the capital. English-speaking communities and English-language institutions are concentrated in Montreal but are also significantly present in the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships, and Gaspé regions.

According to you, where does that leave all the other regions?--Wikiqueb (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to strike any and all reference to the FLQ from Quebec's main entry page

Whoever feels the FLQ belongs on Quebec's main entry page, I challenge you to go over to the Mohawk Nation page and add an entry to the effect a small group of them took up semi-automatic weapons, killed a Quebec police officer, mobilized the Canadian Army and polarized the Country. Just as that incident and group of Mohawks did not, does not and will not define Mohawk culture and society, neither does the FLQ.--Wikiqueb (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You have quite a bee in your bonnet, haven't you? No one claims the FLQ defines Quebec but it is an important era in modern Quebec history and to ignore it would be a serious error. The Oka Crisis is quite properly on Kanesatake, Quebec. Your "challenge" would be similar to asking to put the FLQ in the Québécois article. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to add a heading 'Incidents of Domestic Terrorism', but don't leave any out. I'm all for historical events as long as they are not selective. And yes, I do feel Quebec's main entry page is anglo-biased. I came here expecting NPOV.--Wikiqueb (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then your POV, sole-purpose account is unwelcome, as far as I'm concerned. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for and withdraw that comment. I somehow misread your statement that you came here to eradicate Anglo bias. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

DoubleBlue, I notice you also edit Ontario's entry. What makes you an authority on Quebec and/or Ontario for that matter. What makes my POV unwelcomed?--Wikiqueb (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please calm down. And that goes for both of you, there's no need for insults. Let's review similar pages, see if there are references to the IRA, the RAF, the Red Brigades under Republic of Ireland, Germany and Italy. If there are, we should keep the FLQ in here. If not, we should delete it. I haven't checked yet, so I don't know what those articles say. JdeJ (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty easy case. Neither of those three articles even mention those organisations, despite all three of them having had a much stronger influence on society and recent history than FLQ. There's no reason why FLQ should be kept here given its marginal role and the fact that similar but much more influential organisations are not mentioned under pages of this kind. JdeJ (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Untrue and immaterial anyway. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what you find "untrue"? This far, your whole argumentation seems to be based on personal attacks and little else. Wikiqueb isn't much better. Both of you seem to be driven by POV. JdeJ (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My comment above has been withdrawn, DoubleBlue has shown a clear intrest in dialogue and civil discussion. My first impression was too hasty and wrong, and I offer DoubleBlue my apologies. JdeJ (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

IRA is in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, Red Brigades is in Italy, and Red Army Faction is in West Germany. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The name Red Brigades is mentioned in one sentence under a picture and there are no references to the IRA in Republic of Ireland. Please note that the earlier organisation called IRA, the one that is mentioned in the article, isn't the same as contemporary IRA. But sure, we could well mention the FLQ is a sentence but it's currently given undue weight, especially in comparison with similar groups. JdeJ (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My references and argument that you won't find a plethora of such groups on other entry pages is not untrue even if it is unwelcomed.--Wikiqueb (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the contemporary IRA would be mentioned in the Republic of Ireland article. I would have thought it was more relevant to the Northern Ireland article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that comparing apples and oranges, and then dissecting minutia (whether a group is mentioned in the text of an article or an image caption), is particularly relevant. The question is not whether other groups are mentioned in the histories of other places -- those places have their own unique and very different histories, and the context is completely different than in Quebec. The question is whether the October crisis is sufficiently notable in the context of Quebec's history to mention in an overview of this province's history. My own view is that it is - it was an important time in Quebec's history, and it lead to a broad consensus in Quebec that any debate over the national question would be through peaceful and political means. I appreciate Wikiqueb's concern that it not be mentioned in a way that it somehow defines that era of Quebec's history, and I would think that it would be a brief mention in a general overview of Quebec's full history, but nonetheless I support inclusion.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why I offered, on many occasions, compromise even after getting outright attacked. But I offer caution, the Mohawk incident was by no means any less or more polarizing in the history of Quebec and Canada than the October Crisis. Let's not get selective if we are to go down that road.--Wikiqueb (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then add a reference to the Oka crisis, by all means. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Skeezix, you make valid points. I would argue, however, the the RAF and the Red Brigades had a far stronger and more lasting impact on Germany and Italy than FLQ had on Québec. That is not to say that we should exclude FLQ, not at all. I'm more surprised by their exclusion, but that is not for us to settle here. Still, I do feel that at the moment this fringe movement is given somewhat undue weight in the article. What I would argue for is to shorten it somewhat, not to remove it. JdeJ (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it absolutely was a fringe movement and footnote in history, an incident among many others.--Wikiqueb (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am quite amenable to improving the wording and balance in the article but assert that the FLQ was indeed an important element not only in 1960s Quebec but, as Skeezix1000 points out, had a lasting affect on Quebec and its politics; Important enough to be included in this overview article on Quebec. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The FLQ is something a select group of Canadians love dangling over Quebecers' heads. The weight it is given within Quebec's main page, within the Quite Revolution section and excluding other such incidents, screams of biased POV. There I said it.--Wikiqueb (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, Wikiqueb - that is not helpful. If you wish to work on Wikipedia, assume good faith. In any event, I'm not sure what you mean. A series of unfortunate events occurred in Quebec, and there was a government response. The current text in no way suggests that the events were somehow symptomatic of problems in Quebec society or defined Quebeckers. I agree with you that it was a fringe group, and if we can source that, the text should make that clear. As it being a footnote in history, I disagree. Nonetheless, I would still shorten the reference from two paragraphs to one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that the French-languge article on Quebec has a section on the October Crisis that is similar in length to the one here. So what we have here is not an instance of "screaming bias" merely because of the inclusion of the subject. If there are particular POV problems with the text, perhaps the best first step here would be for Wikiqueb to point out the questionable language that is an issue for him/her. Otherwise, let's improve the article, and stop the accusations and drama. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The French version presents it as an incident with a brief paragraph under its own header and beginning with a link to its Wikipedia entry.--Wikiqueb (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider "brief", since it's about the same length and covers the same issues -- in fact, it's more prominent with its own heading. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you actually pointed out the particular portions of text that you find to violate WP:NPOV rather than making sweeping accusations. That way we can all work together to actually fix the problems. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Its own heading reads 'October Crisis' and thus presents it as an incident in history. However, it doesn't make their inclusion of it any more righteous for reasons I have already outlined and that's something I'll take up with them. I hate repeating myself, but the way it was presented here under the 'Quite Revolution' heading and taking up 3/4 of the text in it was a travesty. Read up on the subject and come back to make a case for the FLQ being in there. Props to DoubleBlue for being the only person to respond to my first attempt at correcting this, but here again in bullet form are reason's it shouldn't appear in Quebec's main page:

• Many other main pages do not include terrorist groups of much greater notoriety and historical relevance
• The FLQ was a small fringe group, nothing comparable to the IRA, RAF or Red Brigades
• Other than an incident in history, the FLQ did not, does not and will not shape Quebec culture and society through its history.

Granted a majority of events under the heading 'History' were relevant in shaping Quebec society, but the blip that was the FLQ does not belong unless you want to go down a path of including many other incidents of comparable notoriety such as the Oka Crisis.--Wikiqueb (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree obviously since I've stated the opposite above, except for FLQ being a small radical fringe, with which I agree. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to bring this up, but how does my getting accused of SPA for participating on the talk page compare to the entry in question getting modified without discussion or consensus and still under the 'Quite Revolution' heading :-/--Wikiqueb (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that was inappropriate. I thought that I was making a change that you indicated a preference for and made good sense to me as well. I believe that I even pointed to the talk page in my edit summary. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with Wikiqueb's initial statements, there is one aspect of the article that I think should be changed - namely the subsection that is currently named "Front de libération du Québec" should instead be named "October Crisis" or something similar, and should cross-link to the October Crisis article. The Quebec article should highlight the incident, not the group. PKT(alk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. My reasoning was that the October Crisis was just the climax of the events that included bombings from 1963 through 1970. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you are not the only person without clarity in his/her dialog thus far, don't you think your "reasoning" is something you could of brought up earlier? There seems to be disagreement with me, but until now no one was making their case for keeping the FLQ in their, which to me suggested people avoiding scrutiny.

To address what you've just brought up and what you've written below, the 8 year Quebec Biker War had a much more profound and lasting impact on Quebec's history with laws similar to the American RICO having been enacted and what have you. I could bring other brief and prolonged examples of incidents into the discussion, but I though the Mohawk incident would suffice in making my point that the FLQ is no more or less profound than these.--Wikiqueb (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's no surprise that I couldn't disagree with you more and a look at any general history of Quebec, in any language, would not reflect your perceptions of historical importance. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to my "revelation" of my reasoning: I think I've been rather consistent and risked repeating myself; if I didn't make it as clear previously, I'm sorry but I thought I did. If I didn't explicitly respond to one of your posts on this page, it's honestly probably a fact that I haven't read it. Your blanketing this page with discourse evoked a wikt:TLDR response. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're a master DoubleBlue. Nice private club you've got going here by the way.--Wikiqueb (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to personal attacks. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? You have no issues with attacking others. And you are a senior Wikipedia member no less.--Wikiqueb (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion to what I've written above, if sullying Quebec with brief and/or prolonged historical incidents of little consequence is what the FLQ's inclusion is about, then let's go all out and include them all. That still won't make it right.--Wikiqueb (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiqueb, you need to understand that your views of the world and of history are just that - your own personal views. Others will have different views, and having different views does not mean the other editors are biased or wrong (any more than it means that you are biased or wrong). You need to learn the arts of listening and working towards consensus -- two skills that you appear not to have exercised at all during this discussion. I also ask that you kindly reread WP:AGF -- if you had read it in the first place, and understood it, perhaps you would not have wasted so much time with silly accusations. I also ask that you stop assuming that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the other editors (e.g. comments like "Read up on the subject"). Some new text has been proposed below. Your suggestions are welcome. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to you Skeezix1000, as a newbie I didn't realize what an utter fraud Wikipedia is until I hit the history tab. Reverting my edit and declaring the North of Quebec region as being central after the discussion and reasoning behind it remained idle for 4 days is a sham. Senior editors editing topics in open discussion without so much as a mention is nothing short of tyranny. Overzealous senior editors with too much time on their hands engaging in personal attacks repeatedly is a disgrace. Then you've got clan-like yes men coming along to legitimize it all. How can anyone in his/her right mind assume good faith? Oh and in case you still haven't noticed, I am guilty of having the courtesy to discuss changes on the talk page instead of indiscriminately editing it like senior editors and unregistered anons.--Wikiqueb (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the issues surrounding the Nord-du-Québec article. But I would suggest to you that the problems and issues you are facing stem more from your eagerness to resort to name-calling everytime someone disagrees with you rather than the behaviour of other editors. The best way to help bring about positive changes to articles is to engage in reasoned and courteous discussions. Best of luck.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scratch pad

How about we work over the contentious section here:

Front de libération du Québec

Main article: Front de libération du Québec

Beginning in 1963, a terrorist group that became known as the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) launched a decade of bombings, robberies and attacks directed primarily at English institutions, resulting in at least five deaths. In 1970, their activities culminated in events referred to as the October Crisis when James Cross, the British trade commissioner to Canada, was kidnapped along with Pierre Laporte, a provincial minister and Vice-Premier. Laporte was was strangled with his own rosary beads a few days later. In their published Manifesto, the terrorists stated: "In the coming year Bourassa will have to face reality; 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized."

At the request of Premier Robert Bourassa, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act. In addition, the Quebec Ombudsman Louis Marceau was instructed to hear complaints of detainees and the Quebec government agreed to pay damages to any person unjustly arrested (only in Quebec). On February 3, 1971, John Turner, the Minister of Justice of Canada, reported that 497 persons had been arrested throughout Canada under the War Measures Act, of whom 435 had been released. The other 62 were charged, of which 32 were crimes of such seriousness that a Quebec Superior Court judge refused them bail. The crisis ended a few weeks after the death of Pierre Laporte at the hands of his captors. The fallout of the crisis marked the zenith and twilight of the FLQ which lost membership and public support.

• First suggestion is to change the heading and main link to October Crisis. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think the most of the second paragraph is too detailed and doesn't belong here. I think something more along the lines of the aftermath of Quiet Revolution article is appropriate to sum up its affect:

Indeed, the events of October 1970 galvanized a loss of support for the violent wing of the Quebec secessionist movement that had gained support over nearly ten years, and increased support for political means of attaining independence, including support for the secessionist Parti Québécois, which went on to take power at the provincial level in 1976. After the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord, which sought to amend the Constitution of Canada to resolve the passage by a previous government of the Constitution Act 1982 without Quebec's ratification, a pro-independence political party, the Bloc Québécois was also created at the federal level. In a December 1970 Gallup Poll, it was noted that 89% of English Canadians supported the introduction of the War Measures Act, and 86% of French Canada supported its introduction. They respectively had 6% and 9% disapproving, the difference being undecided.

DoubleBlue (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK by me PKT(alk) 02:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me too. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One small note: I would keep the reference to the War Measures Act, perhaps taking the first sentence of the "old" second paragraph and adding to the end of the proposed first para. (we don't need the rest of the details). It was the imposition of what amounted to martial law in peacetime that contributedto making this a notable event. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DoubleBlue's suggestion looks good to me. JdeJ (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had nicely put this issue out of mind. The suggested change above, if I recall correctly, is simply a copy/paste from Quiet Revolution and I'd only intended it to be a starting point toward a new wording of the section. Skeezix1000's ideas here are well-founded. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If your point of view is that the War Measures Act is what makes the FLQ's inclusion noteworthy, then it should be filed under October Crisis with text referring to that event. If it's the fact the FLQ operated for a few years prior to the October Crisis, then it is no more noteworthy than other sustained acts of criminal activity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and should not appear in the article. Many events have preceded political change in Quebec, the FLQ being one of them doesn't make it more noteworthy.--Wikiqueb (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I'd like to move the sentence on English-speaking Quebecers from the first to the fourth paragraph, while adding some additional information. I think this improves the flow of the lead sentence, adds pertinent and more detailed information about the status and location English speaking Quebecers, and puts it in the context of Quebec's minority populations (i.e. Aboriginals, allophones).

Also, Quebec is in "central Canada", which is in "the eastern part of Canada". It is not in the central part of Canada. A person not familiar with the peculiarities of Canadian geography might be confused by this.

It's because Québec along with Ontario were the first to be part of Canada. [16] It's ironic how Québec haven't yet officialised it's part. [17] --DynV (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the two paragraphs would look like.

• Quebec (/kwɪˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec (/kebɛk/^ⓘ) is a province in the eastern part of Canada. It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population, and the only one whose sole official language is French. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec.

• Quebec is Canada's largest province by area and its second-largest administrative division; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. It is the second most populated province, behind Ontario. Most of its inhabitants live along or close to the banks of the Saint Lawrence River. English-speaking communities and English-language institutions are concentrated in Montreal but significantly present in the Outaouais, Quebec City, the Eastern Townships, and Gaspé regions. The central and northern portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited primarily by Aboriginal peoples.

--soulscanner (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm making these changes, as no one seems to object. Feel free to revert to the previous version if you feel this needs to discussed more; I'll respect the consensus on this. The old version is okay, and by no means compromises the neutrality of this page. --soulscanner (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Canada vs. Central Canada

We need to figure out what to do about this one in the first sentence, as neither term is completely accurate. The grouping of "Central Canada" has much more historical and political meaning than a grouping of Central Canada with the Atlantic Provinces. Nevertheless, as you point out, the term might confuse people given that the province is physically located in the Eastern half of the country. What we need is a very concise way of saying that it is in the political and sociological region of Central Canada while being in geographic East. Whatever we do, the articles on both regions should probably be linked somewhere. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Canada doesn't really have an east-west divide. It's more like west of Ontario is the "west", Ontario and Quebec are "central" and the maritimes are the "east" (although then they're Quebec's Eastern Townships too). Although, those less familiar with Canada might just separate it into east-west, and obviously Quebec falls in the east geographically. Maybe we could do a footnote like we did for the name? Something like

Quebec is located in the Eastern half of Canada, but is historically and politically considered to be part of Central Canada

-Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, as a resident of the province of Quebec, I've always heard it said here that Quebec was in Eastern Canada. I hardly ever heard of Central Canada. However, since this is a geography article, shouldn't the eastern geographical location be the prominent consideration?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As a native born Quebecer, I've most often heard Central Canada. I agree with arctic.gnome on this, and Royalguard's proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed also with Arctic Gnome that we should specify that it's Eastern in geography, but Central in politics, though like Ramdrake, I've never heard of "Central Canada" despite being Québécois myself. CielProfond (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Speak to any Atlantic Canadian, and you'll hear it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a musing: is it possible that the cause of these different perceptions might be that "Central Canada" is use more in English than in French? (I'll volunteer that I almost always listen to French-language news).--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be. I did a quick search of CBC (en) of 'quebec "central canada" ', first result was the winter storm from March titled Monster storm in Central Canada moves to Maritimes. Quebec is implied to be in Central Canada. When I search 'quebec "eastern canada" ', got the ice storm of '98 titled Ice storms continue in Quebec and eastern Canada, implying that Quebec is not part of Eastern Canada. So it might just be an english thing. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Quebec belongs to eastern Canada. Ontario and Quebec definitely form central Canada. On the other hand, I did find this article referring to Montreal as being in eastern Canada. If we look hard enough we might even find American writers referring to Quebec being in the east. I've actually heard Britons refer to Toronto and Montreal as being on the "east coast"! Joeldl (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added the line as a footnote. If you don't like the wording, feel free to change it. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I added that Quebec was a nation at the beginning of this article. Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.44.25 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As it is wholly undisputable that Quebec is entirely contained in the eastern portion of Canada, we must clarify in the intro that Quebec is in eastern Canada and that it is often referred to as central Canada for historic reasons (much as the American Mid-West is actually in the Mid-East). - Eric (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the introduction

Can we please remove the second paragraph in the article completely? It really doesn't belong in the lead. It's just a bunch of political crappe. Maybe we can move it to the politik section.Soup on the rocks (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work went into the crafting of this paragraph, and it was important to a lot of people, so, I don't think we should reopen this can of worm too soon.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work went into the articles about Corey Worthington and Al Gore III, but those were deleted anyway. The whole paragraph doesn't belong in the front of the article and it makes the lead far too long. We should excise it or move it to its appropriate location. Soup on the rocks (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we should not remove it. And you don't strengthen your case one bit by deleting it all the time despite being the only one if favour of doing so, it's starting to look very much like vandalism or WP:OWN. I have to admit that your arguments thus far fail to persuade, if you want to argue your case you might come up with something a bit more convincing than "It's just a bunch of political crappe". JdeJ (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is convincing, what I wrote. The fact that this declaration by our infamous Prime Minister, Mr. Steven Harper, has changed absolutely nothing in the lives of honest hard-working Quebeckers (of which I am a member) goes to show that this paragraph really doesn't belong in the introduction of the article. It's a piece of trivia and carries little importance to the article. The introduction should be concise and relevant, in order to encourage readers to continue to the meaty sections of the article. Soup on the rocks (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)~

Maybe what you wrote is convincing to you, but not to the rest of us.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And who, pray tell, is "the rest of us"? Soup on the rocks (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. Two other points.

• DON'T edit other users' comments like you did to mine on your talk page.
• Having looked into your edits, such as all the nonsense you've posted to vandalise Proto-Indo-Europeans, it looks likely that you're on Wikipedia just to troll. I suggest you improve your behaviour immediately. JdeJ (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1. You made a spelling error.
• 2. I'm very serious about this proposition Soup on the rocks (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of good reasons why this section shouldn't be in the introduction:

1. It's a bunch of political crappe designed to increase the number of Quebec votes for the federal Conservative Party
2. The declaration changes absolutely nothing with how the province functions or for the people.
3. The Prime Minister himself made the declaration on the spur of the moment; he notified his cabinet only the very morning before he made the declaration.
4. The hon. Lawrence Cannon was hard-pressed to explain this declaration to reporters after the Prime Minister made it, thereby showing how devoid of real meaning it really was.
5. It makes the introduction too long and unfocused.

Please do not remove the template that I added to the beginning of the article as long as we are discussing the introduction. --Soup on the rocks (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph on nationalism is very appropriate in the lead. The lead should be a summary or introduction of the key points of the article and nationalism has a key rightfully-lengthy section in the article. I have a point-of-view about the significance of the nation declaration as well but the way to deal with the somewhat contradictory interpretations of the declaration is to describe and cite both sides and let the reader make his own conclusions; not to censor it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit about Quebec being a nation (i.e. the political crappe) is five lines long in the article. 'That' is the appropriate spot for it. I'm not suggesting anything gross like censorship. I'm saying that the whole nationalism bit does not belong in the introduction. To be more precise, it doesn't deserve a spot in the introduction. Soup on the rocks (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. I guess most of us still disagree. To many of us, the recognition, although symbolic, is important enough to be in the lead.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're making a good point. It's unusual to launch into politics unless there's a civil war going on. However, there are better ways of making your point. You're going to have to put together a very careful argument if you want to open this topic again. I don't really have time for it. --soulscanner (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As Soulscanner argues, a case could be made for removing the section although Sotr hasn't made such a case. I agree with Soulscanner that a statement of this kind is unusual. On the other hand, the situation is also a bit unusual. Very few provinces and countries have voted twice on independence in the past 30 years and there are also very few places where the issue of national identity is so prominent in many aspects of life. JdeJ (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the blurb on Quebecois nationalism in the lead. I think it is very inappropriate. Nationalism and politics should certainly be included (and there should indeed be an acknowledgement that some Quebeckers wish to gain more autonomy). The question is whether this belongs in the lead. Usually, the lead is a place where general information is written. Political stuff is not included in the lead of an encyclopedia page. If that were true, we would see that kind of thing in the lead portions of many countries around the world. In my opinion, some people are abusing Wikipedia (which is an educational site) to put a spin on their own personal opinion. In this case, a separatist Quebecker wishes to put the spin that a majority of people in the province wish to separate from Canada. Yet, this is not the case. To date, a majority of Quebeckers have always voted against self-determination. This includes both referendums which have been held in the last 30 yrs. The irony is that if you read the lead, you are given the feeling that all Quebeckers are moving towards separation. As I said, that is very misleading. Clearly, this should be removed from the lead. It should be discussed in an objective and rational way under the heading of Quebec's role in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.119.92 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the paragraph in question, together with this section of the talk page and the talk page archives. This paragraph was carefully worded as a compromise between numerous editors. The paragraph does not convey that "a majority of people in the province wish to separate from Canada", just that recognition as a nation is important to a lot of Quebecers (I remember a surve which said that about 80% of Quebecers consider they form a nation - I could probably dig up a ref if you want). That I know of, most editors present at the time the paragraph was drafted felt that the subject was indeed " discussed in an objective and rational way", but that its prominence in everyday Quebec life was important enough that it should be mentioned in the lead.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "nation" recognition means absolutely nothing except it is political attempt to win more Quebec votes. This is so true that the Conservatives kept about the same level of Quebec' votes at the 2008 election. So, this has nothing to do in the lead. 216.252.80.31 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Denis.B

Additional changes to introduction

To improve the introduction's accuracy, I would like to propose the following change from:

The central and northern portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited primarily by Aboriginal peoples.

to:

The central and northern portion of the province is inhabited primarily by French Quebecers and sparsely populated by Aboriginal peoples.

It's bad enough most Quebecers are ignorant of this fact and pejoratively refer to the north as 'Indian Country' without this Wikipedia entry intentionally misleading readers.

The total population of resident Aboriginal peoples in Quebec is 61 810. When refering to the north, most Quebecers living in urban centers to the south of the province consider the Laurentian chain of mountains, which begins at the 46th parallel, as a gateway to The North. However, let us assume The North begins at the 48th parallel, which excludes many urban centers located within the Lauretides region predominatly populated by non-Aboriginals. Even at and above this geographical marker, Aboriganal peoples are by far a minority among primarily French Quebecers inhabiting the area.

Total population above the 48th parallel: 555 515

Total Aboriginal population above the 48th parallel: 43 797

See list of Quebec regions and their populations.

--Wikiqueb (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no objection so I proceeded with the following edit:

The central and northern regions of the province are inhabited primarily by French-speaking Quebecers and sparsely populated by Aboriginal peoples.

--Wikiqueb (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to it, but would you please start new discussions at the bottom of talk pages? JdeJ (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my noobishness, I thought I was at the bottom of the thread discussing changes to the Lead. --Wikiqueb (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is potentially a problem: the "central and Northern" parts of Quebec are usually considered to be mostly the administrative region of Nord-du-Québec, where the aboriginal population is slightly above 60%. So I guess it depends on how far north "north" begins. I would tend to say that starting the north at the Laurentians is way too far south. I'd say northern Quebec should start approximately north of Abitiby-Témiscamingue.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're basically saying the same thing I am, only pegging The North a little higher. Even if you consider the north as starting at region 02, that only excludes Abitibi-Temiscamingue with a population of 155 000. Côte-Nord (09) and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean (02) have a combined population of 370 000 still leaving Aboriginals in a minority. But that's all moot anyways because the original entry included and still includes 'central' Quebec, which consists of regions 08, 04, 03. --Wikiqueb (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I am saying you should exclude also' Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean. It is definitely in the southern portion of the province. And please, provide references that say regions 08, 04 and 03 are "central". We shouldn't have to rely on any one editor's appraisal.--Ramdrake (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have certainly provided more references than you have. You are assuming region 10 is both central and northern Quebec, which is patently false in the context of this Wikipedia entry. The sentence prior to my edit reads:

Most inhabitants live in urban areas near the Saint Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City, the capital. English-speaking communities and English-language institutions are concentrated in Montreal but are also significantly present in the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships, and Gaspé regions.

According to you, where does that leave all the other regions?--Wikiqueb (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite Revolution Entry Extremely Biased IMHO

How does two (2) paragraphs describing the FLQ terrorist group fit under the heading 'Quite Revolution' which was a pacifist (hence the term 'Quite') mouvement away from the church and Maurice Duplesis' quasi-authoritarian regime? Furthermore, the official Quite Revolution entry mentions that it is generally accepted to have ended before the FLQ's October Crisis.

Why dispalying Quite when it is Quiet ? 216.252.80.31 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Denis.B

How does a terrorist group define Quebec society and warrant placement on Quebec's main entry page? You will not find domestic terrorist groups (ie. Ku Klux Klan) on the United States main entry and of course I could dig up many more Wikipedia examples.--Wikiqueb (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a better name for the heading, I'd entertain that but the Front de libération du Québec movement was a very important element in the modern history of Quebec. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then perhaps it should fit under Domestic Terrorism, but again I find this very offensive on Quebec's main entry page, borderline conspiracy even. As mentioned earlier, I think we can all agree the Ku Klux Klan and many other American domestic terrorist groups have shaped their history as well and yet have their own seperate entries.--Wikiqueb (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For an example closer to home, should the Bernardo/Homolka duo be included on the main Ontario entry? It definitely marked their history. --Wikiqueb (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nord-du-Québec

Regarding the Nord-du-Québec issue, one must realize that this region alone covers 55% of the province of Québec. Also, considering that Radisson (Qc) is the northernmost non-native settlement in the province, and lies exactly between the southernmost and northernmost points of the province (it lies in the south of the Nord-du-Québec region), one should understand that indeed the center and northern part of the province are sparsely inhabited, and majoritarily by natives. Placing regions like Québec, Lac-St-Jean or Abitibi-Témiscamingue in the "central" portion of the province doesn't make much sense to me, geographically speaking.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to population and roughly half a million people inhabit the area outside the lowlands mentioned in the article. This perpetuates the false notion that the entire area is primarily inhabited by Aboriginals which is simply not true. In fact, the portion of the article referring to Quebec's lowlands was copied from the demographics page. Radisson as Central Quebec is a stretch of the imagination when referring to demographics, you will not find a reference for that. But you don't have to, your point of view has already been accepted as fact.--Wikiqueb (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Radisson is a small village situated near the Robert-Bourassa hydroelectric power station on the La Grande River in the James Bay region of Quebec. Geographically, Radisson is located halfway between the southern and northern most points in Quebec and is the only non-native town north of the 53rd parallel in this province.[1]--Ramdrake (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I know very well where Radisson is located geographically, it's not very far from where I live. That's not my point.--Wikiqueb (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to continue ignoring a whole swath of Quebec's population, it should be worded something similar to this so as to not mislead readers:

Excluding the Nord-du-Québec region which is sparsely populated and inhabited primarily by Aboriginal peoples, most inhabitants live in urban areas near the Saint Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City, the capital. English-speaking communities and English-language institutions are concentrated in Montreal but are also significantly present in the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships, and Gaspé regions.--Wikiqueb (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this is an improvement in the writing, as it downplays the Nord-du-Québec region. And I don't see that the "most inhabitants live in urban areas" doesn't apply to Nord-du-Québec, as even there, most of the population is concentrated in a series of small villages.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Downplays the region? I don't know what you mean by that, but even if it does, it's not a legitimate motive to continue misleading readers. The way the article is worded now is like someone saying that the southern part of the United States is populated primarily by Hispanics because they are thinking of only one state and ignoring the rest. Quebec has 17 regions of which only 5 are mentioned in the article. Excluding Nord-du-Québec, the other 11 remaining regions are not primarily inhabited by Aboriginals.--Wikiqueb (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But the other 11 remaining regions do not occupy the north of the province; they are all in in the south of the province geographically speaking. In any case, I'd agree to DoubleBlue's rewording of the sentence. If that's acceptable to you too, let's just leave it at that.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz' edit is a good compromise as far as I'm concerned too. At least it's not misleading.--Wikiqueb (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem for complicit fraudsters on Wikipedia is that you can't go back in time to change your text without leaving a trace, Ramdrake. I don't have time to sustain an edit war nor did I come for that reason, so have fun kids.--Wikiqueb (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor your personal attack. The edit I was pointing (the compromise solution) was indeed pur there by DoubleBlue, but I mistakenly attributed it to Ckatz the first time around, and later corrected the attribution. I don't see how that could be construed as any kind of fraud.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)