Talk:Quebec/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• René Lévesque BAnQ P243S1D865.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Religious demographic numbers - citation and vagueness

What appears to be the main source for the provided religious demographic numbers is no longer available on the main site page provided, and there appears to be no archive.org page available. Moreover, the distinction given here between 'Orthodox Christian' and 'Greek Orthodox' is impermissibly vague. If the cited page explained or attempted to explain this distinction, it is, again, no longer available (At least in the provided form or as an archive.org page), and it really should have been cleared of vagueness within the section itself, if cited at all. The section should be revised with or without the original citation, although the actual availability of this citation is important for the character of the revision. Zusty001 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

English and Indigenous Languages should be included in a Common languages section

English is a widely spoken language in Montreal, Rigaud, Northern Quebec, and the Eastern Townships while Indigenous languages are spoken in First Nations communities across Quebec. Such a section should be created since these ethnic groups are an integral part of Quebec society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaetianlombard (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Dispute about Infobox content

An issue has come up: should the infobox to this article contain the field "government_type", filled in with "Parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since this issue affects all ten provinces and the three territories, a Request for Comment has been started on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board. If you interested in this issue, please come to the Notice Board and contribute to the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the question as presented in this notice is not the same as in the RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oldest parish church?

The article says: "The oldest parish church in North America is the Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Québec". Is that really true? The article Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Québec doesn't include this claim, only that it is the oldest church in Canada (founded 1633). The Catedral Metropolitana Basílica de San Juan Bautista founded 1511, is much older. Maybe that doesn't count as North America? Sources I google refer to Puerto Rico as part of the north american continent. The San Miguel Mission in New Mexico was founded in 1610, and this is unambiguously in North America. Does the term "parish church" have a specific meaning that excludes San Miguel Mission? Staecker (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've looked into it for you. What this passage is refering to is not that the building itself is the oldest church in North America, but that the parish that runs it is the oldest parish in North America. Churches with parishes are usually called "parish churches". Maybe it should be re-written to be clearer? idk Safyrr 22:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Add "the only majority Francophone province in Canada" in the lead

It makes sense IMHO because the history and language debates are in large degree shaped by this fact. The lead does not make it clear.

Cf. New Brunswick: It is the only province with both English and French as its official languages. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of term "Quebecois"

In French, the term "Quebécois" just refers to anything pertaining to Quebec. In English, however, it's more of a cultural term: it can refer to anyone in Quebec whose first language is French, anybody in Quebec who is descended from the inhabitants of New France, or sometimes to anybody from Quebec, or just the Francophone culture of Quebec generally. It's a term with a lot of ambiguities in English, and if not used carefully can be misleading, especially for people from outside Quebec who are unaware of its complicated meanings.

This article uses the term "Quebecois" to describe everything - all people from Quebec, all companies based in Quebec, the territory of Quebec... in French that would be fine, but in English it just makes the text sometimes confusing. So I'm revising the article's use of the term to be clearer. I'm going to leave usages intact where it refers to identity, culture, or community that is normally described as "Quebecois," but change it when it refers to concepts where culture isn't really relevant. So "Quebecois territory" will become "the territory of Quebec," "The median Quebecois age is___" will become "the median age," etc. I won't touch the "Quebecois nation" line in the intro however since there seems to have been a lot of debate about that. theBOBbobato (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have mentioned this before, which got ignored and is now safe in the archive: the opening section should be changed from:

Quebec (/kəˈbɛk/ kə-BEK, sometimes /kwəˈbɛk/ kwə-BEK; French: [Québec] Error: {{Lang}}: invalid parameter: |link= (help) [kebɛk] ^ⓘ)...

to:

Quebec (/k(w)ɪˈbɛk/ k(w)ih-BEK; French: [Québec] Error: {{Lang}}: invalid parameter: |link= (help) [kebɛk] ^ⓘ)...

Reason? No sources are given to justify the current version. CEPD gives UK: /kwɪˈbɛk, kwəˈbɛk, kɪˈbɛk, kəˈbɛk/, US: /kwɪˈbɛk, kwəˈbɛk, kɪˈbɛk/, plus /kɛˈbɛk/ as an as if French pronunciation. COD gives /kwəˈbɛk, kəˈbɛk, keɪˈbɛk/. First, following MOS:DIAPHONEMIC, if there is variation between /ɪ/ and /ə/, it is generally enough to only give the pronunciation with /ɪ/ (unless, perhaps, the schwa is significantly more common, even among speakers who do not generally have the weak vowel merger, as in item /ˈaɪtəm/, rarely /ˈaɪtɪm/); we can ignore the fact that /kəˈbɛk/ is for some reason used in Britain but not in America, according to CEPD. Second, even if /keɪˈbɛk/ is not mentioned in CEPD, it is worth taking note of, since Quebec is located in Canada, and COD includes this variant (albeit placing it last, hence its inclusion within a footnote, not the main text). Third, there is no reason to place the pronunciation without the glide second or, the more so, to amend it with the adverb sometimes. This seemed to be a result of Quebec nationalist agenda of some sort and the desire to reflect the French pronunciation; there were no pertinent arguments to back it. Before being changed by User:Safyrr, this article contained the transcription /k(w)ɪˈbɛk/. This should be reason enough to go through with my edit, and, as I feel there is not much to discuss here, this is what I am going to do. Maciuf (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Notes

So, I understand that you want to include a certain pronounciation, which is "Kwee-Bek", in the lead paragraph. I don't have any problems with this personally, I know some people say it that way. What I don't get is why you want to remove the other pronounciations -the most common of "Kuh-Bec" and also alternative "Kwuh-bek"- to replace them with only this one and why you think other pronounciations are the result of a Quebec nationalist agenda? Safyrr 02:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you know how MOS:DIAPHONEMIC works for weak vowels? You probably do not if you allege that I 'removed the other pronunciations'; as a matter of fact, /k(w)ɪˈbɛk/ is synonymous with /kwɪˈbɛk, kwəˈbɛk, kɪˈbɛk, kəˈbɛk/. It is nice that you want to help out, but it is recommended that when doing so you refer to reliable sources, which do not happen to include your personal fancy. I would also much rather you had undertaken the task of educating yourself (onerous as it may be in certain cases) before endeavouring to waste my time on this pointless discussion. If you have any cogent arguments against my edit, be kind enough and put them forth (why should we not follow standard brevity procedures in this case; on what basis do you deem the pronunciation with /w/ rare enough to justify supplying it with the preposition 'also'?). So far you have not presented any line of reasoning whatsoever for me to dispute. I am to assume good will, but it must nevertheless be admitted that your hypocrisy is astounding: when I introduce an edit backed by multiple reputable sources, it turns out I ought to have waited for consensus; when you throw away a claim sustained by the OED, favouring in its place your own fanciful notion, it turns out no consensus is necessary. I do not want to start an edit war; I am trying my best to be patient, but please acknowledge this: your edit was not evidence-based, you have no valid rationale. Try not to be difficult. Maciuf (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Safyrr, please acknowledge the above. Maciuf (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Omg, dude, you need to calm down and learn how to talk to other people! All I'm asking is why you remove other pronouciations and why you think some ways of saying Quebec in English is related to Quebec nationalism? That literally makes no sense, and you didn't answer why. There are plenty of ways to say the word "Quebec" in English. There is only an official spelling. Using spellings in a dictionnary is also not an end-all-be-all because wikipedia articles are also about reflecting how things are said in real life, not just what an obscure dictionary says. I don't know, in fact, know how MOS:DIAPHONEMIC stuff works. Sorry for being a normal person. I also did not respond to you the day after because I have a life lol. Anyway, not gonna bother to continue talking to you or to correct you. You obviously just want to win a fight and "how to say Quebec" is just not that important to me. Safyrr 20:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I have re-added |k|w||ə|ˈ|b|ɛ|k| , it is a very common pronunciation in Canada. Here it is used by a TV reporter and an interviewee in Montreal: [1] . Perhaps the guy/gal at the top [2] should have asked a Canadian before edit-warring and making personal attacks. Rapido (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Largest province

Intro paragraph states Quebec is the largest province by area, yet details show it as 15.4% of Canada's area - 2nd to Nunavut's 20%. 73.209.120.91 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Quebec is the largest province - Nunavut is a territory. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As non-Canadian the difference province / territory is not that obvious to me. So I have been bold and footnoted it with stating Nunavut being larger. Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Dissatisfied with the many rights..."

There's been a bit of an exchange between @Safyrr: and @Amaaretz: on this page, with deletions and restorations and questions about whether a statement is properly sourced. I would like to comment on it, as I think there is a misunderstanding about what the cited source says.

The dispute is over this paragraph, currently in the article:

Dissatisfied with the many rights granted to Canadiens and wanting to use the British legal system to which they were accustomed, the Loyalists protested to British authorities until the Constitutional Act of 1791 was enacted, dividing the Province of Quebec into two distinct colonies...

Safyrr says that this paragraph is supported by the cite at the head of the paragraph: Loyalistes, but Amaaretz disagrees.

I think that the passage which Safyrr is relying on is this one:

Le Gouverneur Haldimand incite donc les nouveaux venus à s’établir dans le Haut-Canada, ce qui deviendra, plus tard, l’Ontario. À l’époque ce vaste territoire est considéré une partie du Québec et le droit français s’applique aux nouveaux arrivants, de même que le régime seigneurial classique. Les nouveaux colons d’origine britannique en sont mécontents, parce que ce droit laisse moins de place à l’initiative des individus.

I do not interpret this key passage the same way that Safyrr does, avec égards. The passage does not say that the British colonists were dissatisfied with the "many rights" that the French-Canadians had. It talks about "le droit", not many "droits"; that is, it's referring to the "French law", not to "rights" of French-Canadians.

The second sentence says that the same law from the seigneurial regime, which applied to French-Canadians, also applied to the new British colonists: "le droit français s’applique aux nouveaux arrivants, de même que le régime seigneurial classique." I would translate this sentence as "the French law applied to the new arrivals, the same as the classical seigneurial régime." That's what they didn't like, the application of the seigneurial régime. They were "mécontents", "parce que ce droit laisse moins de place à l’initiative des individus." I would translate the phrase as they were dissatisfied, "because this law did not leave as much to the initiatives of individuals." Again, "ce droit", singular, means in this context "this law", i.e. the seigneurial régime. It's not a jealousy of the rights accorded to the original habitants.

Based on this analysis, I would suggest re-wording the passage in the article as follows, which I think is more consistent with the cited source than is the current wording in dispute:

"Dissatisfied with the legal rights under the French seigneurial régime which applied in Quebec, and wanting to use the British legal system to which they were accustomed, the Loyalists protested to British authorities ..."

How does that sound? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your analysis. I think this conversation belongs here, and I am unsure why it was initiated on my personal talk page.

While I do not object to the substance of your language, I object to the notion of substituting one acceptable language with another, for the sole purpose of placating a specific editor. The only acceptable reason for a change would be the credibility of a fact or source.

I also think that your language, while factually correct, is a bit reduntandt. The British were "Dissatisfied with the legal rights under the French seigneurial régime which applied in Quebec" because they were accustomed to their own and didn't like having to adhere to a foreign one under their own rule. I'd also rephrase it to read: "Dissatisfied with their legal rights under the French seigneurial régime which applied in Quebec".

Beyond the 3 small objections I've made, I don't have any issues with your language and I thank you for your insights! Amaaretz (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That change sounds good to me. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz wording and support this replacement. I disagree with what Amaaretz has suggested as it adds nothing that has not already been said. I would also like to remind @Amaaretz that the only reason we having a discussion here is to placate a single editor, them, since they have an issue with the current text and have never submitted any sources to support their claims at any time. Safyrr 20:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've put in the new suggested phrasing. Safyrr 20:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)