Talk:Quebec

Canada: Quebec Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.

Canada A‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles A This article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2006 - April 2007)

The statistics supplied in this section about the ethnic origins cannot be included in this page as it is. There's a lot of background information missing concerning how to interpret the information supplied. And no, a link to the study published by Statistics Canada is not enough. Interpretation of the data is hard and to my humble opinion almost impossible. They have counted the answer 'French Canadian' as both french and canadian. So the question is this, how can one now be able to distinguish people who's origins are from France (Europe) and the people who answered 'french canadian' ? Either put the non-aggregated results or remove these results altogether, because right now, it's impossible to use and really misleading. Anyone got another idea on how to correct this ?

There is also one more thing to note. The answer 'french canadian' doesn't mean both french and canadian for many many people here. It actually means 'from quebec'. If Statistics Canada conducted this survey without considering this, I say it's not worth putting it on the Quebec's page since it's baloney.

Wow, Quebec is not so strict on immigration. Quebec is allowing immigrants from the former French colonies and anyone who can speak French without college/university degrees, to settle in its province. Now there are many French-speaking North Africans, Sub-Saharan Africans and Haitians living in Quebec. Sonic99 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Unless I'm mistaken, Canada has an immigration policy, not the provinces. Once you are in Canada, you can live anywhere you damn well please. Lexicon (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec has its own immigration policy which is different from the policy of rest of Canada. The Quebec's French government wants to preserve the French language, but they're not considering the demographic change that is occurring in their province.Sonic99 21:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting, what is your source Sonic? Aaker 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec receives more immigrants than a great deal of countries. See the statistics on slide 12 here.

The immigration policy that Quebec has (as a province inside Canada) allows it to pre-select immigrants to Canada who plan on residing in Quebec. The Quebec government recruits world wide, but targets countries where there are francophones and "francotropes". The result of this policy is that Quebec attracts a great number of people from Africa.

The immigration department prepares a yearly plan of immigration. They can be read online here. The target for 2007 is 48 000 received immigrants.

The main law framing immigration to Quebec is An Act respecting Immigration to Québec -- Mathieugp 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aaker 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody insists on changing "English-speaking Quebecers" to "English-speaking Québécois". Here is what the Gage Canadian Dictionary says about the words:

• Quebecker or Quebecer n. a native or long-term resident of the province of Quebec.
• Québécois n., pl. Québécois. French. a Quebecker, especially a Francophone.

This concords entirely with my sense of how the words are used in English. While Québécois, used in French just means "Quebecker", the use of this word in English definitely carries the additional connotation of a Francophone. I am reverting the change. Joeldl 09:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. -- WGee 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebecer for the english and Québécois for the french. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Quebecer for everybody. Québécois usually means "francophone Quebecer" in English, but is rather imprecise. I don't use the word at all. Joeldl 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it imprecise? Why would the two Quebec sovereigntist parties Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois use it in their names then? Québécois refers to Canadian French (esp. in Quebec) better than any other term. Quebecer is too english to be used to refer to the french (les Québécois). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those parties' names are in French. The Parti québécois is a political party, even if they use the word parti in their name. When Gilles Duceppe speaks English, he always says "Quebecers", and is referring to all Quebecers. When there is a need to distinguish francophone Quebecers, you can call them francophone Quebecers, or even francophones if the reference to Quebec is implicit. Other than in Harper's "Québécois nation" motion, I doubt you'll find the word "Québécois" used in a government document in English, because of its non-neutral tone. (By the way, the Bloc's motion called for recognizing "Quebeckers" as a nation, and it was the Tories who changed it to "Québécois".) I don't like the term Québécois because what people use it for (when the reference to Quebec is implicit) is just "francophone". I don't like emphasizing that they identify as Quebecers rather than Canadians by using "Québécois", because their political point of view is irrelevant. Joeldl 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for Joeldl

What's the difference between a territory and a region? --AW 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, a region is usually geographic in nature, with a few exceptions (there's the west, Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes, and the north). A territory is a politically drawn up region in Canada that has the same form of government as provinces, but doesn't require a constitutional amendment to add, and isn't represented by the Queen in the form of a Lt. Governor (it has a commissioner instead). The federal government also has more power there (and a whole department dedicated to it- Department of Indian and Northern Affairs). It's like a regular province, but all the territories are less populated (because they're all north of 60, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about territories and regions in Quebec - such as in the template at the bottom of this article, {{Template:Subdivisions of Quebec}}. It includes regions like Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Côte-Nord and Montréal (region) while territories include places like Jamésie Territory, Quebec and Kativik Regional Government. However, the Jamesie article says it's part of the Nord-du-Quebec administrative region. It's confusing --AW 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17 regions in Quebec. See Regions of Quebec for a list. The word "territory" doesn't have an official meaning by itself, but may appear sporadically in other expressions, such as "unorganized territory" (an area not administered by any municipality). Joeldl 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring to Template:Subdivisions of Quebec. Here, "territory" means a group of municipalities, Indian or Inuit lands, and unorganized territories which do not fall under the jurisdiction of a regional county municipality. Joeldl 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then someone with knowledge of this should clarify the template and the article Regions of Quebec. Maybe create one for Territories of Quebec as well. --AW 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found official references to these as "territories", but it's obvious on a map that they correspond to "hors-MRC" municipalities bunched together. The template has other factual errors; for example, the list of agglomerations is incomplete. I can't fix it right now, but if you want to give it a shot, there's Administrative subdivisions of Quebec which in conjunction with [1], I think, has all the necessary information, except for "territories". Joeldl 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would clarify the situation as follows : Currently "The act, designed to placate one North American colony, had the opposite effect among its neighbors to the south. The Quebec Act was among the Intolerable Acts that infuriated American colonists, who launched the American Revolution. A 1775 invasion by the American Continental Army met with early success, but was later repelled at Quebec City. However, the American Revolutionary War was ultimately successful in winning the independence of the Thirteen Colonies. With the Treaty of Paris (1783), Quebec would cede its territory south of the Great Lakes to the new United States of America."

Should be "The act, designed to placate one North American colony, had the opposite effect among its neighbors to the south. Because the Quebec Act extended the southern boundary of Quebec to the Ohio River, the act was considered by American colonists as among the 'Intolerable Acts', which helped precipitate the American Revolution. A 1775 invasion by the American Continental Army met with early success, but was later repelled at Quebec City. However, the American Revolutionary War was ultimately successful in winning the independence of the Thirteen Colonies. With the Treaty of Paris (1783), the British empire ceded its territory south of the Great Lakes to the new United States of America."

In the Subdivisions box at the bottom of the article, "Longueuil" is incorrectly written as "Longueil". I would have fixed this minor error but article is protected.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cataclaw (talk • contribs)

I've fixed it on the template. Interesting that someone created a redirect for it at the incorrect name, but it matches the article now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"While the province's substantial natural resources have long been the mainstay of its economy, Quebec has renewed itself to function effectively in the knowledge economy: information and communication technologies, aerospace, biotechnology, and health industries."

Someone fix this. - MSTCrow 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the "Boundaries" section say that "This was followed by the addition of the District of Ungava through the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 that added the northernmost lands of the aboriginal Inuit to create the modern Province of St. Matthew."??? I've never heard this term. Can anyone clarify, or was this a case of very subtle vandalism? If no-one knows, I'll change it in a few days.

Richardmtl 14:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change done. Richardmtl 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the abbreviation was always PQ? --AW 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Qc abbreviation was introduced at least 20-30 years ago, as far as I can recall.--Ramdrake 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PQ is still in use but officially its QC 24.226.230.236 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Qc' is the form used on Canadian census returns, as far back as 1901. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.82.56 (talk) 15:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The abbreviation "PQ" is use for the "Partie Québecois" and "Qc" is us for "Québec". Or maybe you still use the very old name "Province of Québec". This name isn't use now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.68.31.6 (talk) 18:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The last part of the first paragraph may be unnecessary. "...is a Canadian province in Canada". Is the Canada part really necessary? Solo1234 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads very awkwardly, but it's clearly there to provide for the two links, Canadian province (which goes to Provinces and territories of Canada) and Canada, rather than to labour a political point. Let's come up with a smoother form of words but maintain both links. – Kieran T ^(talk) 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "province in Canada"? I changed the article with this criterium. -- dockingman^talk 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds better that way :) 24.226.230.236 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in Quebec between the 1870’s and 1940’s!? --J intela 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To what I was taught in history, philosophy and French classes, nothing very interesting, mostly being controlled by religion to preserve the French language. See something called "La revanche des berceaux". --24.37.160.221 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added at the beginning of this article that Quebec is a nation. I have put as a reference Of course, nation doesn't mean state. Pgsylv 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is user Pgsylv suggesting that the government of Quebec's web site is not authoritative when it calls Quebec a province? ""Unique" is a great word to describe Québec. The province is in a class of its own, with its immense territory and distinctive personality, thanks to its majority French-speaking, multicultural population. Welcome to Québec, the largest Canadian province and the only one where French is the population’s first language!" - http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/portrait?lang=en&id=pgs.portrait&location=pgs%2Fportrait VisitorTalk 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That will be hardest to prove since the definition in english isn't the same, still good chance with it :p 66.158.134.50 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly POV since, as mentioned above, the definition is not the same in English. Putitng it in the intro is also subjective. I don't feel it has its place there and have deleted it. Furthermore, the nation is already mentionned here [[[2]. Tomj 20:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not as POV as one might think, as this is the very word ("nation") that the Canadian PM Stephen Harper used when proposing his bill to recognize Quebec as a nation, back in November last year, so it could actually be sourced. However, putting it in the intro is debatable under the undue weight policy.--Ramdrake 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Ramdake said, S. Harper used the word "nation". Charles Blattsberg who is from Toronto is teaching that Quebec is a nation just as Israel or Catalonia. In Political Science, the term nation refers to a common language, common territory and the self-recognition. In other words, if Quebeckers recognize themselves as Quebeckers, speak French and have a link with the territory, we call Quebec a nation. (Ask a person from Ontario or B.C., they will tell you they are Canadians). I will wait for you to answer my comments but I will put it back later today. U.K. recognizes Scottland as a Nation, that is what S. Harper did. Those are the facts. If you are not conviced, look for Gerald Bouchard's or Charles Blattsberg's writings for a more scientific point of view. T Y 207.96.176.72 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to your comment regarding the recognition of the nation. However, stating it in the intro without any context is inappropriate. Tomj 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's appropriate because the first thing Quebec is, is a nation, after that a province. In this Article, it says that it was Nouvelle-France, then Canada, but the reality is that Canada now means everything outside Quebec. Politicaly speaking, Quebec is a nation and a Province. Most of the Academics agree on that (I have given two references on that). I could add Charles Taylor but is point of view is rather philosophical than political. I still want to write at the first place that Quebec is a nation. The french version accepted it. Every dictionary I have consulted were putting Quebec as a nation. T Y 207.96.176.72 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis Québécois and I guess you are, and I understand your point. However, it is mentionned in the article

“

On October 30, 2003, the National Assembly voted unanimously to affirm "that the Quebecers form a nation". On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons passed a motion moved by prime minister Stephen Harper declaring that "this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." As only a motion of the House, it is not legally binding.

”

Still, stating "nation" as the main qualifier is misleading. Quebec is a province, recongnized as a nation. Would write in the intro of Andre Boisclair : "Andre Boisclair is a gay politician" ? Certainly not. Even if true, it would be inappropriate. Tomj 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

andre boisclair was the chief of the parti québécois and then was a politician and then was ... and finaly was gay. quebec is a nation, then a province. i m getting tired to convince people when it s been 10 years academics have made concensus around that question. it s quite an insult to what quebeckers really are, a nation. don t worry, with 2/3 of the assemblee nationale being not federalist, and a clown named jean charest at the head of liberal party, we will slowly but surely get this recognition. when 70/100 of the people of quebec are identifying as quebecker before canadian, and that some canadians are still arguing that we are just a province, i think that the misunderstanding will never end. anyways, just write down its a province, even though most of academics recognize it as a nation ... hail to the queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.176.72 (talk • contribs)

Get out of your dreams (and sign your comments or better,create an account) Tomj 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that Quebec was a nation at the beginning. Canada's article starts like this " Canada is a country ". The nation of the Ontarians is the canadian one. The one of the Quebeckers is the quebec one. Nation is more important than province. Quebec is not just a province like Manitoba is, it's a Nation. That's why we have to put it first. 207.96.176.72 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very much like an opinion (or original research). Is there a reliable source showing that Quebec is it's own nation? --clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Gérard Bouchard, La nation québécoise au futur et au passé, (VLB éditeur, 1999)

Possibly even more important is that Scotland mentions it being a nation right at the beginning of the intro too. I guess it ascertains the relevance and notability of such a fact. Under these circumstances, I would support the same statement being made in the intro to this article.--Ramdrake 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

Finaly, we decided to add "nation" at the beginning of the article, just as it is in the french version. I wrote down the best reference and i expect you do the same if you remove it Pgsylv 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The province of Quebec is not a nation. The Quebec people are a nation. Those two are very different things, indeed. Lexicon (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Quebec" is a nation and "The Province of Quebec" is a province. I will ask the Admin to put a 3R header if you change it again. I have put the best reference and we all know Quebec is a nation and a province... until it becomes a nation and a country. Pgsylv 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what would make Scotland be a nation and Quebec not be one? It's in the intro to the article on Scotland...--Ramdrake 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I haven't made a single revert, Pgsylv. Secondly, this article is about the province of Quebec. Third, your argument that "Quebec is a nation" and not "the people of Quebec are a nation" doesn't add anything, since the term "Quebec" as you're using it in fact is the same thing as "the people of Quebec" -- "the Quebec Nation" is synonymous with the Quebec people in the same way that "the Mohawk Nation" is synonymous with the Mohawk people. There is no piece of land which is the Mohawk Nation, just as there is no piece of land which is the Quebec Nation. Sure, the province of Quebec is intricately tied to the Quebec people as a nation, but it is not in any way synonymous. Quebec, the province, which is what this article is about, is not a nation. The Quebec people, or the use of "Quebec" poetically to refer to them, may be considered a nation. And that's that, really. As for you, Ramdrake, I would argue against using the term "nation" in Scotland since, of course, the word "nation" has many different definitions, and it is highly confusing there. Instead, I would have put the term Home Nation which has a more defined meaning, and Scotland is indeed a Home Nation in the UK.

Nation, or Home Nation, I fail to see a major difference. If one can call Scotland a nation (because it has this status), then since Quebec also has the status of nation, it should be possible to call it a nation too. And pardon me if I'm blunt, but your distinction that "the nation of Quebec means its people, not its territory" seems specious to me, (or at least an unsupported POV so far). Do you have a source to support such a POV distinction?--Ramdrake 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see the difference? One is a term that has a generally understood meaning referring to a specific type of political entity in the United Kingdom, and the other is a very vague term with several different meanings. I disagree that Scotland should be called "a nation" since that term alone breeds confusion. Not only that, but the article on England doesn't call it a nation, it calls it a "constituent country", (which is another term like Home Nation)—and if Scotland is a nation, then England is just as much one. Your one example is certainly not enough to argue as "precedent" either. Now, there are generally two different meanings for "nation" - one is "sovereign country" (a nation-state), the other is "people" (it really isn't specious, check out the definition for yourself). France is a nation in that it is a sovereign country, and the French people (poetically France) are also a nation, as they are a people. Quebec is not a sovereign country, so it is not the first kind of nation. The Quebec people are a nation, however, but then it may be argued that other people in Canada are a nation in the same way—Acadians, Newfoundlanders and Metis, for instance, not to mention the Inuit and many many First Nations. The problem here is that the quotes I see above even refer to "Quebecers" and "Quebecois" as constituting a nation, not the landmass of Quebec as being a nation. Quebec doesn't qualify as a political nation, since it is a province of Canada, so the only idea of nationhood is that Quebecers are a nationality—a distinct people, which I hardly think anyone who understands ethnicity really would object to. However, that does not make it acceptable to claim that "Quebec is a nation" in an article on the province of Quebec, as is being done. No matter what Scotland might say. Lexicon (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, The United Kingdom is composed of 4 nations: England, Wales, Scottland and Ireland, their flag represents this fact with a cross and an "x" in the middle. You get confused over State, Nation and Country, three different concepts. A Nation-State (in french:État-nation) is what most of the countries are. A few of them are composed with more than one nation, like the United-Kingdom. I refer to nation as a political concept, not a "poetical" one, as you say. In Polical Science we refer to a Nation as 1- people recognizing themselves as part of this nation (like 70% of Quebeckers) 2- people living on a specific territory (Quebec Territory) 3- People speaking the same language (French). I have already given my references. I'm still waiting for yours. Pgsylv 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes I've seen above refer to "Quebecers", not Quebec. And there's certainly nothing that is scholarly and enough to prove that this article should call Quebec a nation. As for my "confusion", no, I'm discussing the different meanings of the same word. And finally, as stated, this is an article about the province. Lexicon (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot talk about the Province of Quebec in here because there is an other article form the Province of Quebec. This article is about Quebec the nation and the province. The definition we will consider for nation is the political one, like they do in Political Science or even in Philosophy. And yes, there are enough proofs and academic works for us to talk about a Quebec Nation. 207.96.176.72 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, this article is about the province of Quebec; a province of Canada, just like Ontario is an article about the province of Ontario; a province of Canada, and Alberta is an article on the province of Alberta; a province of Canada, and so on and so forth. Notice any similarities? Perhaps you should consider creating a new article called "The Nation of Quebec" as opposed to pushing your political view here. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can add "Quebec is a province in Canada and is also nationally recognized as a non-sovereign nation within the Canadian Confederation." There is a difference between the term nation and country.Pieuvre 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario , Alberta, BC, are provinces. They all speak English. They all love the Queen of England and still want her to be the chief of the State. Quebec is a nation and its territory is the Quebec province, wich is all different from all other provinces and territories in Canada. Nobody has given me a reference saying that Quebec is NOT a nation or JUST a province. If you want to split the article, go ahead, but the one on the province will be very thin and meaningless. 207.96.176.72 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario , Alberta, BC, are provinces... and so is Quebec. As far as bringing meaning to the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not collect essays and radical ideas to bring meaning to readers' lives. And I don't see how listing Quebec as a nation in the first paragraph adds any more meaning to the article for that matter. Anyhow, encyclopedias list facts, period... and the fact of the matter is that the land mass we call Quebec, as defined by its political divisions, which is what this article is about, is not recognized as a nation; it is recognized as a province within the country the world knows as Canada. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we submit the question to a RfC?--Ramdrake 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, but Ramdrake, I'm sure you can at least agree that the introductory sentence in its current form is clearly false. That is, Quebec can not be nationally recognized as a nation within the Canadian Confederation as the Canadian Confederation was the process by which Canada became a country and is not an official piece of paper whereby one can open a book and refer to. I will not change it today lest I break the 3R rule, but I will change it tomorrow if the sentence remains as is. — Dorvaq (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. I interpret the term Confederation as neither being the process, nor the piece of paper (I assume you mean the Constitution), but merely the assemblage that is Canada, or in this case, Canadian Confederation==Canada, basically. In this case, I would submit that it still hold true.--Ramdrake 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not picky with the word "confederation". I just don't know how to describe the union of provinces and territories that now form Canada. Of course it is a province and everyone knows that, but it is also recognized as a nation by the House of Commons and the National Assembly and I think it's worth mentioning it somewhere in the article. Catalonia will be always a nation within Spain, but it's officially called an "automious community". Why can Quebec have two terms?Pieuvre 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To state that the Canadian Confederation nationally recognizes Quebec as a nation is, to the very least, misleading, regardless of what *you* interpret "a confederation" to constitute. Neither the Canadian Confederation as "the process" nor the Canadian Confederation as "the assemblage" (or Canada) *nationally* recognizes Quebec as a nation.

Likewise, to couple the source being used with the statement that Quebec is *nationally recognized in Canada* as a nation is also misleading, as the source in question writes nothing on how Canada recognizes Quebec as a nation. One source written by a seperatist author who refers to the Quebec province as a nation is not enough to show that Quebec is *nationally* recogized as a nation — "nationally" here referring to the entire country of Canada and not just Quebec in isolation. — Dorvaq (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what I meant by "nationally recognized" is that the Parliament recognizes it such. If it doesn't pass, then I would suggest you to redefine it. I'm not very picky. Grammar and accuracy is not my best skills here. All I know that it would be clearer to include "non-sovereign". It may still confuse some people, but they'll understand Quebec is not an independent nation(-state). That is if you're going to mention "nation" somewhere in that article. And I already told you I used "Canadian Confederation" due to the lack of other definition to call the union of provinces that form Canada. I did tell you can change that whatever you want. It's not my interpation.Pieuvre 02:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if your interpretation of "nationally recognized" means that Parliament recognizes Quebec as such, then the source being used has to illustrate this. The source currently being used does not — it doesn't show how Canada as a collective of 32 million people or Canada as represented by Parliament nationally recognizes Quebec as a nation. — Dorvaq (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/nation-vote.html I still suggest to reword "nationally recognized as a nation within Canada" to "nationally recognized as a non-sovereign nation within Canada" if anyone would like to be be more clear that Quebec is not an independent nation-state. If you want me to change it and include the source, just tell me. I don't want to touch anything yet. Pieuvre 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That says Québécois, not Quebec. Quebecers are a nation. Quebec is not. The exact wording of the motion was "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." That, without ambiguity, means that the Quebec people are a nation. That is, they are a nation like the Inuit are. Like the Mohawk are. Like the Ojibwe are. There is no question here. Parliament did not say that Quebec was a nation. Period. Lexicon (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Lexicon. All mentions of Quebec as a nation has been deliberately avoided in the wording of the motion. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my mistake, and how do you call the people living in the territory of Quebec? It doesn't matter what the rest of Canada says about Quebec technically since it is up to the Quebecois to decide what to call Quebec and themselves as. Or however, you can reword it to include the fact that the National Assembly and Parliament recognize the Quebecois people forms as a nation (which is already present in the article anyway). Even most federalists of Quebec agrees that it is a nation, even the PLQ members, so it's not a separatist ideology. It isn't a big argument in Quebec. I just still do not see a reason why this cannot be mentioned since it is a real fact that Quebec is a nation according to the defintions of nation (note: I did not say nation-state or country). There is still no reason to delete this nation fact since it still holds true. I would like you to show me some sources that Quebec is not a nation. I already removed "nationally", and added "considers itself as a non-sovereign nation within Canada" and preserved the reference. Good enough or no? Perhaps I should consider creating a paragraph somewhere in the article to clarify that sentence. Pieuvre 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, once again I have changed the version. I'm the only one bringning scientific references to support my scientific arguments. Is it possible to discuss this issue with scientific method? You could have used other historians/philosophers like Linteau, Pelletier or Charles Taylor to support your arguments. Quebec is a nation and that is what Academics have found with their researchs. Please put references to your sayings before removing what I have written. By the way, the fact that Stephen Harper recognizes it or not doesn't matter. The nation is not souvereign (that means is not recognized as it in the Federation). Finaly, I juste want to mention that Canada is a Federation, not a Confederation like it says in the real name of Canada (Confederation of Canada). In political science, a Confederation is something like Europe. Pgsylv 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I can still live with your change. I was trying to be more clear to fit in the arguments. Though I'd keep the "non-souvereign" part in. By the way, I did not remove your reference...just a rewording of the context. Anyway. Pieuvre 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. It's just that it didn't correspond to what you were saying. Geread Bouchard said Quebec was a nation... that's it ... Pgsylv 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pgsylv, that is not the way Wikipedia works and there is absolutely nothing scientific with your source. You can not come here and claim to speak on behalf of 8 million residents of Quebec. To claim that the majority of Quebec identifies itself as a nation or that the common academic view is that Quebec is a nation, are both exceptional claims, and as such they need exceptional sources. One source coming from a seperatist author who talks about "La nation québécoise" and not "La nation de Québec" is far from meeting this criterion. You are the one making this exceptional claim, which makes the burden of proof yours, and not the other way around. This means that it is not up to Lexicon or I to disprove your claim, but up to you to prove it, which is how Wikipedia works. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were provided with two sources that says Quebec is a nation: one, a political author from Quebec who says so, and second the prime minister himself recognizing Quebec/its people as a "nation within a united Canada", a non-sovereign one, and mostly for cultural and linguistic reasons (which is one of the acknowledged bases to define a nation). That you say the people and not Quebec itself was recognized is specious, since the people identify with the territory (I'll refer you again to the article on "nation"). Considering all this, it would be up to you to find a reliable, verifiable source that says the Harper motion recognizing Quebec as a nation doesn't apply to Quebec itself, but only to its people.--Ramdrake 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong you are. It is not up to me because what you are doing is interpreting the facts, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia, while what I am doing is *listing the facts*... big difference. To say that Quebec is a nation because 2 sources refer to the "Québécois" as a nation is interpretive. Whether you think it is specious or not is completely irrelevant because that is *your* opinion and *your* interpretation. The fact that neither source refer to Quebec (the land mass) as a nation is not *my* opinion or *my* interpretation; it is a fact. This is how Wikipedia works; we do not interpret facts for the reader based on anyone's logic, we list the facts and allow the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusion. As such, your 2 sources are not enough to list Quebec as a nation and the burden of proof is yours. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I do that this article about Quebec is much more than about the landmass: it's about the region, yes, but also its history, its government, its people, its economy, its culture, its demographics, its language, its symbols, and so on (says so right in the table of contents). So I would dare say that your assessment that this article is "only about Quebec as a landmass" is wrong. There are other subjects which make the recognition of Quebec as a "nation within a united Canada" pertinent to this article.--Ramdrake 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, you are digressing from the point at hand — the point is, if you want to add that Quebec is a nation, find the sources that show this, period. The current source being used and the source mentioned in this discussion are not sufficient. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying they are. Let's put this to an RfC.--Ramdrake 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, by all means. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :)--Ramdrake 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC looks good. I was going to provide this: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=23ba4837-5854-458d-b513-0c2d2d0b5ea3&k=50919 This shows that a strong majority of the Québécois agree that Québec should be seen as a nation. Pieuvre 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're interpreting again. Your reference shows that a strong majority of the *French speaking Canadians* surveyed agreed that *Quebecers are a nation*. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who makes up a majority of francophone Canadians? Here's something better: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/public-opinion/ Pieuvre 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the poll doesn't talk about the majority of francophone Canadians; it talks about the majority of francophone Canadians surveyed - big difference. Notice that the poll mentions that francophone Canadians made up 1/3 of 1,500 respondents surveyed. Who's to say that those 500 francophone Canadians surveyed actually resided in Quebec?

Next, your second source is definitely better than the first, but I wouldn't go as far as stating that the majority of Quebeckers see their province as a nation or would want sovereignty based on this poll. You have to keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia and making either statements here would be interpreting the results of the poll for the reader, which is unencyclopedic. On the other hand, what you can say is that of 505 Quebeckers interviewed for an Environics Research Group poll, 61% responded that they think Quebec is a nation within Canada - notice; no interpretaion done for the reader? The reader can make his/her own conclusions based on this poll. If the reader feels that 505 Quebeckers is a fair respresentative sample of the entire province of Quebec, and therefore he/she believes that the majority of Quebeckers see their province as a nation, to be blunt, we don't care as long as we list the facts - their conclusion is their prerogative. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFChist Considering that this has been a news item [3], should the article mention that Quebec is a nation (any required qualification: non-sovereign, cultural, etc. accepted)?--Ramdrake 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification and to avoid quote-mining, the motion passed actually recognizes the "Québécois as a nation within Canada" [4] and not the province of Quebec as the above reference suggests. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, a secondary question to this RfC should be: Should this article be considered to be strictly about the geographical area that is Quebec, or also to cover its inhabitants, their culture, language, etc.?

No, that is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is whether or not the geographical area of Quebec - that is the province of Quebec - can be considered to be a nation and whether or not the references supplied are enough to illustrate this. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This point is only relevant if this article limits itself to the geography of Quebec, and doesn't talk about its people, their language, their culture, which this article does. So saying the motion doesn't qualify to be included because it applies to Quebecers and not to Quebec is a moot point because this article talks about Quebec and Quebecers. In any case, I'd much rather let the other editors decide than keep up this tit for tat dispute in this section.--Ramdrake 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec (as the landmass) cannot make itself a nation, only the people can. So I agree with Ramdrake. My opinion is that I don't think we need sources since the definition of nation is good enough. If people get confused with the concept of nation, all they have to do is click on "nation" for more information. Like for Scotland and Catalonia, I don't find any sources that they're a nation within a nation(-state). Pieuvre 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The motion does qualify to be included. You're missing the point. If you wish to include it, you have to include the motion as it was passed - that is the "Québécois as a nation within Canada" - and not as you interpret it - that is "Québécois" to mean the geographical province of Quebec. You are interpreting what "Québécois" in the motion means for the reader for every source supplied. You can not say that Quebec is a nation because a motion was passed to recognize the Quebecois as a nation. That's being interpretive. But, you can say that the Quebecois are a nation, because a motion was passed to recognize the Quebecois as a nation. Notice the difference? You must list facts as they are presented in the sources.

And Pieuvre, that is not how Wikipedia works with regards to sources. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable enough sources to illustrate a point. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again and again, you've failed to see it was a mistake from me to mention "Quebec" from that motion. You also fail to understand my "interpetions". And you also failed to see I do know how the Wiki works (to show facts for readers to judge, eh?) And you're moving too far from RfC topic. I already gave my comment (as requested here) that I think there is no need to provide a reference next to "nation" in the intro as the fact itself is already linked in the word "nation" (unless you're going to ask me to provide a source defining what is a nation). The motion of the Parliament is already mentioned further down the article itself. I'm not going to repeat myself in RfC. Pieuvre 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorvaq, you are missing the whole point in here. Please tell me the equivalent in french for "The Québécois" if its not "les Québécois" wich is the name of the individuals , the basic element, the citizen of the nation called Quebec ?? Now, we bring the facts and what you bring is confusion. It's useless to discuss with you because you are blinded by your love for the federation of Canada. In political and philosophical way, Quebec is a nation and a Province of Canada, not like Ontario or BC. The Logos changes with the language used. Is that too much for you? 70.83.226.185 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I won't give a full response to your question as Lexicon has already done a great job in doing so a couple of times in the above discussion. There's nothing more I should need to add to make the point any clearer. Secondly, don't be so presumptuous by alluding to knowing where I stand in the whole federalist/seperatist issue - you have no idea. Also, I will not dive into that discussion because whether you're a federalist or seperatist is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the motion deliberately avoids referring to the province of Quebec as a nation, and as such should be avoided here as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should simply quote the relevant passage from the motion, and perhaps discuss reactions to it, if this deserves that much prose. Quoting it directly ensures that its meaning is not twisted. Foobaz·o< 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that we should quote that motion. Doraq convinced me somehow last night. Pieuvre 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the motion of S. Harper has nothing to do with the FACT that Quebec is a nation. Please refer to Gérard Bouchard. This is a Fact, Quebec doesn't need a Canadian governement motion to exist. What have you studied in, Dorvaq? 207.96.176.72 13:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't need a Canadian government to do that. You can quote the motion passed in 2003 by the National Assembly...something affirmed by the Quebecois themselves for their own identity within Canada. But it does provide a clear source affirming the fact it is a nation. I won't dispute M. Bouchard here since I haven't read that book. But I could assume what he wrote would be his own intrepation. It has nothing to do with what Doraq has studied...took me a while to understand him...but he just asks for a source stating the fact. He does see Quebec as a nation in own opinion, but he believes it should be backed up according to the policies of the Wiki. Pieuvre 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but what could be that source if every source is "a point of view" . Dorvaq as not even 1 source because he can't find any Academic saying Quebec is NOT a nation. ALL academics agree with the FACT that Quebec is a nation. That's it that's all, pieuvre. And if you havn't read or at least know what is Bouchard's "point of view", it's not worth it arguing in here. 70.83.226.185 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorvaq doesn't need to provide any sources as Dorvaq hasn't made any claim. You're the one making the claim, and as such you have to provide the sources. I haven't said Quebec isn't a nation, but you have claimed it is, which makes the burden of proof yours. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And three sources were supplied, which you contested on different grounds, which makes the burden of proving the sources wrong yours, no?--Ramdrake 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, why do you keep doing that? I haven't contested the sources; I've contested the misleading way they were being interpreted and used in the article. I don't need to source the mis-use of another source. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reject these sources as misleading on the principle that what was meant was that Quebecers but not Quebec form a nation. There are several other editors here who say this distinction is moot, so it would be up to you to provide a source which says that the distinction is important, or for example that the Harper motion specifically excluded the notion of Quebec (as opposed to Quebecers) as a nation.--Ramdrake 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, for God's sake, and for the last time, I am not rejecting the sources and I do not need to provide a source to show that your sources do not say "Quebec is a nation". All one has to do to see this is to look up the sources and they will see that the sources do not state that "Quebec is a nation". Whether or not you interpret "Quebeckers" to also mean the province of Quebec in Harper's motion or in Bouchard's essay is called interpreting for the reader. That is why I am asking you to stick to what the sources say, which is what we're supposed to do as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter that 2 anonymous IPs (which I suspect are the same editor along with Pgsylv), Pievre and yourself think that the distinction is moot, as the fact of the matter is your sources do not specifically state that "Quebec is a nation". It's even completely irrelevant whether or not I think there is a distinction, because when there is contention - and I'm not the only one saying this - it's always a better idea to stick with what the sources say. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I no longer think it is moot. But I'm done here for now since I gave enough of my piece. I'll just observe. Pieuvre 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Pgsylv is acting in bad faith.

“

we all know Quebec is a nation and a province... until it becomes a nation and a country

”

Pgsylv 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ...a nation and a country. He wants to expose his sovereignist POV Tomj 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i tried to stop him on the french one, at least to formulate it in a less confusing way. 66.158.134.50 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the facts. Please read Charles Taylor and Gérard Bouchard. Both of them have showed that Quebec is a nation. By the way "The Québécois" is meaningless. We are not refering to S. Harper motion but to the facts corroborated by Bouchard's and Taylor's writings. Pgsylv 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely mistaken , Bouchard and Taylor express their opinions in their writings. Given the Undue weight policy, there is no need to mention nation in the intro. Bouchard is a sovereignist: [5] . Tomj 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely mistaken, Bouchard and Taylor demonstrate, in a rational way, that Quebec is a Nation. Not one single Academic contests this fact (unless you have a reference). So, unless you get a scientific reference saying Quebec is NOT a nation, dont change the first lines of this Article.Pgsylv 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Get out of your dreams dude" -Tomj ... What is that supposed to mean? By the way, I'm not what you call a "dude". I'm not a teenager and I don't accept you talk to me this way. Pgsylv 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop arguing with you.It's a dead-end. The "Quebec nation" is an extremely complicated debate. It's your choice to push that idea on Wikipedia.I think I'll go pack my things to get out of that so-called "nation" Tomj 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing. you had no references anyways. My Work is serious, not yours. Pgsylv 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, that Quebec is a nation is Gérard Bouchard's (among others) POINT OF VIEW Wikipedia is not about that ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomj (talk • contribs) 18:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

When ALL the Academics have that POV, it means it is a consensus. It means it's a fact, it means we can write it in Wikipedia. Your POV (Quebec is NOT a Nation) isn't shared by the majority. Taht's it. Sorry you got mad. Have you moved yet? Pgsylv 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just ridiculous. All academics do not think Quebec is a nation. Truth is, the idea is so not mainstream that academics don't need to talk about it. Serious Egyptologists don't publish in academic journals "the pyramids weren't built by aliens", but that does not mean that they agree with the crack-pots who think they were. BTW, watch this: [6]. Lexicon (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is ridiculous? You want to bring this discussion on that level? You insult me? Let me tell you one thing: give the name of only ONE academic in Quebec that says that Quebec is not a Nation. Only ONE. By the way, it's funny that you compare the fact that Quebec is nation with UFO theories... there is no link at all. You have weak arguments and they are ridiculous. Pgsylv 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very funny Lexicon... you sent me a video in wich Stephane Dion is giving its POV. He is a POLITICIAN. You want me to quote Jacques Parizeau or Bernard Landry. I see you don't know what means Scientific Method. And by the way, saying "Quebeckers" are a nation but not Quebec is the stupidest thing ever heard in this country. What is sad is that Dion has a PHD in Political Science (you didn'T knew that either). Pgsylv 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that Stephane Dion was explaining what the motion meant. He was explaining the meaning of the motion which actually fits with the language of the motion. The motion speaks of Quebecers, not Quebec. That's really just about all that can be said on this without going into personal point of view. It's obvious that you're not going to bother to try to understand that there really is a difference between "Quebec" and "Quebecers" (although I'm sure without a doubt you understand there's a difference between "Canada" and "Canadians"). I'm not going to bother to discuss this with you any longer. People will continue to revert your changes, however, no matter how many times you revert them back, for the simple reason that you are incorrect. Lexicon (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Tomj 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm giving all parties fair warning here. Stop the edit warring. Enough of the reverting back and forth. I will enforce 3RR if I have to. I will protect the page if that will stop it. Solve the issue here and not in edit summaries. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. However, WP:RS states that we need to back sentences up with citations. If a user violates WP:REDFLAG without any citations it could be considered vandalism. So in reality we should not even be having a discussion because a user does WP:OR and claims something without citations. Watchdogb 03:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the fact that Quebec is a nation. Gérard Bouchard and the majority of the specialists on that question agree with the fact that Quebec is a nation. This is my reference. From a philosophical and political point of view, it has been demonstrated. Now, what Stephen Dion is saying on Youtube is not appropriate in here because we cant rely on a biaised POV, a partisan one (S. Dion is the chief of the Liberals). Finaly, the difference between Quebeckers and Quebec is that Quebec is the nation and Quebeckers are its citizens. I changed the version. Pgsylv 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where is your citations ? As far as I can see there is NOTHING. You seem to be speaking from OR which is not allowed in wikipedia. Also please note that WP:REDFLAG "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Further, minority views should be such and not be written in WP:Lead. Watchdogb 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the "Quebec is a Nation" sentence. I really thought that was some kind of vandalism but it seems that we are giving a nonsense such time. Earth is NOT flat ... Of course there will be sources that say that the earth is flat. However, those kind of citations fail WP:RS. Same goes with Quebec is a nation. There will be sources that claim it is. Those sources will fail WP:RS. Anyway, in this case the citations are a bunch of names. This is wikipedia. Provide sources to back up the claims. Not names. I hope we all understand that this edit is blatant vandalism to promote someone's OR. Simple as that. PS: The names given as sources do not even seem to be notable (at least to the topic at hand). PPS: There is no need for warning or 3RR. Vandalism can be reverted specially sentences without citations Watchdogb 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put it now. Pgsylv 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page number please. Again one of the reference you have given says "he bill clearly stated that Quebec would retain its boundaries as they currently exist within Canada". Isn't that enough ? to prove your point wrong Watchdogb 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.227 .... what is " he bill " ??? of course Quebec will retain its boundaries within Canada. Nation doesn't mean Country. Pgsylv 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a policy interpretation, WP:REDFLAG doesn't apply here. This issue is also widely disputed in the Canadian media, and has had heavy reporting from both CBC TV and CTV. It's not from out of the blue. As for the messages on my talk; if it is protected it will be on whatever version is present at the time (and is not an endorsement of that current version). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:33, 22 August 2007(UTC)

Good, then you can back it up with RS ? Should be really easy right ? WP:REDFLAG applies as long as there aren't enough citations backing up a particular exeptional claim. Thanks Watchdogb 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me. I meant that it's been in the news before and is something I've even heard of before this edit war happened. It's old news (I think the BBC will do, no?). REDFLAG just says editors should look out for outlandish claims, which this is not. It's got international coverage. It's not from left field. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I won't change it anymore. Pgsylv 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, WP:Lead says that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article". Adding "Quebec is a nation" in the Lead violates both the sentences. Also, note that this is English wikipedia. You citation is not in english and cannot be used unless a translated version exist. Thanks Watchdogb 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La question de la nation est primordiale. Il a été démontré à maintes reprises que le Québec est une nation et il n'en revient qu'à ses citoyens de décider s'il est une nation ou non !! Et 70% des Québécois se reconnaissent comme tel ! Translate with babelfish. Les deux solitudes ne se comprendront jamais. Pgsylv 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Après on veut s'ouvrir sur le monde et former une nation... Tomj 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've crafted a formulation that should take care of the objection that the people, not the province was recognized as a nation. I also made the subject of nationhood into its own subsection so it can become evident the subject is broached in the article proper.--Ramdrake 12:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! Good work Ramdrake. Thanks for the work Watchdogb 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! That's the kind of wording I've been trying to think of. Pieuvre 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it will solve the matter. Tomj 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be okay, but Quebec is a nation and you could say it the way you want, it will always be a nation (just like Scotland). Anyways, thank you Ramdrake. Pgsylv 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placed "nation" statement in political context; people have different points of view on what "Quebecois nation" means. I think we can all agree, no matter what our political point of view, that the whole subject is politically volatile and subject to POV iinterpretations. --Soulscanner 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. 70% of the people in Quebec are considering theirselves as Quebeckers. See statcan for statistics. The Quebec Nation is not "volatile" . 70.83.226.185 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had a consensus with the others before you came in. Please respect the discussion. The Quebecois Nation is meaning less in this case. Pgsylv 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we really had a consensus. Soulscanner is right, it is not an issue for the lead section, which is for major issues discussed later in the article, and ones that are central, at that. This issue is neither. Lexicon (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, there was something like a 5-way consensus before you came to the article. If you feel strongly about it, we can reopen the discussion and check to see if consensus has changed. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could respect the current consensus. The recognition of the Quebecers as a nation is indeed a major issue in the political history of the province.--Ramdrake 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work people. We have effectively made this well written article into a political battle ground. We all agreed a statement that was acceptable by both parties. However, it has significantly been transformed to reflect a particular POV. Seeing that the article has been tagged with a NPOV, rightfully so, I think the article is at loss here. Good job ! Watchdogb 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't see what the added, very polemical statement is doing in the intro. As far as I can tell, it only serves to belittle the idea of nationhood for the Quebecers, especially considering the fact that the 2006 Harper motion is only one of several that confirm this state of affairs (the 2003 motion passed by Quebec's National Assembly could as well have been used as an example).--Ramdrake 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with including polemical statements, as long as they are clearly identified as such. However, it's important that the context be explained. I would hope that we can find a way to come to a real consensus here. --Soulscanner 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always told that including a polemical statement, especially in the introduction, was something frowned upon here at WP. Besides, the introduced statement isn't described as being polemical.--Ramdrake 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I see very few regular contributors to the article commenting on the addition of "Quebec being a nation". Presenting this motion without context implies that it is important regarding Quebec's status, which is debatable. It is also unclear whether all of Quebec's residents are "Quebecois". The fact that this debate exists is not polemetic; it is a doumented fact. Removing this referenced fact goes against Wiki policy, as does removing a Wiki neutrality tag before a dispute like this is resolved. I've opened a section on the talk page to resolve this dispute. Give it a week so all regular contributors weigh in. If this does not work, we'll need to go to more formal measures. But the neutrality tag needs to stay until a real consensus is achieved. --Soulscanner 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some feel the "Quebec nationhood motion" should be in the lead sentence. Others feel that it does not belong to the lead section at all. There was no consensus here, as no vote was held on the matter, and the regular contributors to this page have not weighed in on the debate.

The Parliamentary motion in question, while important, is not as vital in defining to Quebec's current legal and "national" status as other legislation and other current and recent events in Quebec. For example, the two referenda on sovereignty are much more important to understanding the nature and significance of Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement than the Parliamentary motion mentioned here. Without understanding the context of the debate, the multiple and overlapping definitions of nation (see the Wikipedia article, which documents the different defenitions), and the fact that the statement "Quebec is a nation" is contraversial and an ideological position that is related to a popular political opinion means that it does not hold the same weight as "Quebec is a province in Canada", which is a simple question of fact. Quebec nationalists and sympathizers on the Canadian left agree with the statement, many federal Liberals and Conservatives would see the motion as meaningless, and Trudeau Liberals and neo-conservatives would see it as dangerous in that it recognizes ethnic nationalism.

I'll also point out that the statement, without context, is also misleading in the sense that it indicates that Quebec nationalist aspirations have been satisfied with this recognition; as anyone familiar with Quebec politics knows, it is considerably weaker than what most (if not all) nationalists are willing to accept.

Personally, I think this motion should not even be mentioned in this article. As a compromise, I propose that mention of Quebec nationhood, if it is to be left in the lead section, be moved to a paragraph in the lead that briefly puts this statement in the context of Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement.--Soulscanner 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - as per arguments above --Soulscanner 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I just came across this article by chance and came to the talk page when I spotted the lead. Its a very clumsy lead, leaping from pronunciation to a sentence that openly admits that people argue over whether it is important. Just seems like it should be about where it is, how many people, for example. A lead section should introduce the topic to you, not beat you around the head with a random salmon. Narson 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just moved the confusing part out of the lead. It should read better now. Also, please consider that a similar notion was passed by the National Assembly in 2003, and that this statement is supported by most Quebec historians and politologists. The nationhood of its people is significant, given all the facts.--Ramdrake 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I appreciate that Ramdrake did not remove the POV tag this time. It shows good faith. However, deleting an important and referenced fact does not; it advances a Quebec nationalist POV; it presents a controversial, complex political assertion as a universally accepted fact. This question is as to whether mention of the Quebecois nation belongs in the lead sentence or in a paragraph later that puts this statement in the context of Quebec nationalism. The meaning of Quebecois nationhood is controversial. The fact is that the person who drafted the motion, the Prime Minister of Canada, considers belonging to the Quebecois nation a matter of personal identity, and thus does not include Quebecers who do not consider themselves part of the Quebecois nation. So do most Canadian academics and politicians outside Quebec, particularly in Western Canada. The article should not advance the Quebec nationalist POV as fact, but should balance all ideological political POV. Deleting referenced facts is to advance a POV is against Wiki policies. --Soulscanner 01:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there's been a dispute here, so it should be pretty well watched right now. If some guy comes along, blanks the page and replaces it with:

Quebec {{stub}}

then go to WP:AIV and ask for him to be blocked. He is a long term vandal with over 90 sock puppets blocked over the last year. 1 edit is enough to identify him. I don't care what people at AIV say, tell them that Royalguard11 told you so. This last time he got 4 vandal edits in. I don't want to have to semiprotect the page yet, but a couple more hits this week and I'll have to. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reference is Charles Taylor in "Reconciling the Solitudes" p.141 . It's important to put it at the beginning of the article just as in the Scotland article.The definition used here is the civic nation, not the ethnic one. We suppose Quebeckers have one language, one territory and they identify themselves as Quebeckers. Pgsylv 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add that there is a debate around the notion of the nation of Quebec, find references ! (CBC is NOT ) Pgsylv 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC references given by Soulscanner are acceptable as per WP:Reliable sources. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, my point is that the caveat belongs in the section Quebec as a nation (as I had already moved it there, but now someone put it up in the intro again, so it appears redundantly).--Ramdrake 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2006, the Candian House of Commons recognized "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada" although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means.

On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons passed a motion moved by prime minister Stephen Harper declaring that "this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.", although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means.

As you can see, the entire passage is redundant and not just the uncertainty part. Therefore, if you are going to argue removal over redundancy, then the entire sentence should be removed as it already appears in the Quebec as a nation section. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is to introduce Quebec as a nation and a province. I have put Charles Taylor. I don't think CBC is a good reference in this case because its a Philosophical and Political issue. What as S. Harper has recognized is ambigous. It's preferable to use Academic writings. Pgsylv 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBC references are more than acceptable under reliable sources guidelines, and they certainly do indicate that there is a debate over Harper's meaning in referring to Quebec as a nation. Please do not remove this again; if you feel it's inappropriate, discuss your reasons here to build consensus rather than reverting continuously. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec was a nation BEFORE S. Harper recognized it. Charles Taylor demonstrated it ! Go read, it's on Google Scholar, follow my reference. Pgsylv 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Taylor is a fine philosopher, but Prime Minister Harper does not agree with him. Nor do his old professors at the University of Calgary Political Science department, who hold fat to the principle that all provinces in Canada are equal. If we include the political opinion of one, then we need to balance it with the opinions of others. Deleting legitimate references they present opinons you disagree with is pushing POV, and against Wikipedia policy. The notion that Quebec is a nation is controversial and should not be presented as an uncontested fact. --Soulscanner 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the sources, I don't think that Quebecers forming a nation is controversial (how strongly was the motion contested in chambers?), even though its exact membership was deliberately left open to some interpretation. If you say that Quebec's (or Quebecers') nationhood is contested, so far you haven't proven that, and I would dare say you're demonstrably wrong. If you say that the definition of membership was left deliberately open to some interpretation, and that it doesn't confer any specific additional powers to Quebec, then you're decide right. But please don't mix the two.--Ramdrake 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep the sources there for now so that people can decide for themselves whether the subject is controversial. I think the intensity and length of the debate here proves that it is. Also, at question is the importance of the motion. If the motion is open to a broad spectrum of conflicting interpretation and doesn't change Quebec's status at all, why put such a minor and ambiguous piece of legislation in the lead without a mention of context? Are there not more definitive and important laws and events that define Quebec's status? Does it not overweight (see WP:WEIGHT) the subject to reflect the WP:POV of Quebec nationalists? If this statement is to be included, this context needs to be explained. Not everyone, including the Prime minister, considers this subject as important as Quebec sovereignists.

I recommend moving the topic as a compromise by between those who wish to push the nationalist interpretation and put it in the lead and non-nationalists who wish to see it deleted. I think the subject is complex and controversial enough to warrant more context. --Soulscanner 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to distinguish between Quebec the province, Quebecers (Quebec citizens), and the Quebecois people (people who identify as Quebecois). It is a very confusing topic, and I think this topic is more appropriate for the Quebecois page, where these distinctions are fully explainedand referenced. --Soulscanner 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Soulscanner, but give me at least one reference with the page. You are doing name droping. Pgsylv 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In: Oxford American Dictionary, "Quebecois: a native or inhabitant of Quebec. " In all dictionaries you have that definition, not what you post on your article "Québécois" wich is horribly confusing. Don't revert my change. Pgsylv 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus that you agreed to was to have it in its current state. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Pgsylv 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

It will be okay, but Quebec is a nation and you could say it the way you want, it will always be a nation (just like Scotland). Anyways, thank you Ramdrake. Pgsylv 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this ring a bell? — Dorvaq (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this ring a bell? ve crafted a formulation that should take care of the objection that the people, not the province was recognized as a nation. I also made the subject of nationhood into its own subsection so it can become evident the subject is broached in the article proper.--Ramdrake 12:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... Pgsylv 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's obvious that there's dispute over what should and shouldn't be in the lead paragraph of this article. I'm coming in as basically an uninvolved editor, and would like to see this low-level edit war come to an end; I've got some questions that may help direct the discussion more effectively, and hopefully help towards a resolution.

• As the article already has a section on the nationhood question further on, do editors feel it important to refer to the concept of Quebec as a nation - similar to the way the Scotland article is worded - in the lead paragraph?

No. Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland are all countries in the U.K., so all qualify as nations as well. In Canada, many see Quebec is a province like Ontario, Alberta, etc., whereas many in Quebec see that nation confers a special legal status that makes different from the others. That is why recognizing the Quebecois a nation in a way similar to the Acadians, Metis, and several first nations gets around that thorny issue. It is an important and complex distinction that would be glossed over by mentioning it in the lead sentence as an iron-clad fact without any context about the nature of Quebec nationalism. I feel the issue be better discussed in the Quebecois article, but I'm willing to compromise by moving it further down in the lead paragraph in a section that contextualizes the statement. --Soulscanner 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of it is, I did originally move the caveat down to the "Quebec as a nation" section, but it seems somebody recopied the caveat back into the intro. To the risk of repeating myself, I see a short sentence saying the people of Quebec have been recognized as a nation as of 3006 in the intro, as this is plain, incontrovertible fact. The debate about what it means, while notable enough to be in the article (as a significant viewpoint on which to report), I don't think should be in the lead, as the statement of recognition is clear to a significant number of people (myself and a large proportion of Quebecers included, I'm assuming). Couched that way, does this position look like something people can rally arround or at least compromise with?--Ramdrake 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, becasue it does not address the issue of emphasis. I don't doubt the fact that Quebec is recognized as a nation. But people have different opinions on what that means. I question the significance of this fact. Is this recognition more important than the fact that Quebec is mostly French-speaking? Is it more important than the fact that it has a Sovereignty movement? Is it more important than the fact that it has had two referendums on sovereignty? I do not think so. I think you need to make a case for why this recognition is more important than these.

I also moved the caveat back because I feel the whole sentence (with caveat) should be moved further down the lead as depicted below. --Soulscanner 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it perhaps be preferable to reword the lead entirely so that the "nation" reference is included, but also include the fact that it's still uncertain as to that definition? The way it's worded right now is kind of clunky and doesn't help the reading of the paragraph very much; it may work better to rewrite, perhaps add a sentence to include this information.

This is why I have proposed a compromise to put this subject in a paragraph below that explains Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement. It would be less clunky there. --Soulscanner 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nation question is still somewhat confusing but probably important, is there a different approach that might be amenable to everyone?

Hopefully this can generate some discussion that helps ease up the constant edit/revert cycle we've got here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the mention of nationhood is important in the lead, as this concept has been approved (legislated upon) by both the National Assembly of Quebec and the Canadian Parliament, in addition to having been a subject of interest in one way or another for decades.

I'm skeptical about the need to include a caveat, although my strongest objection is about the present wording, which should be rewritten. IMHO, something along the lines of: As of 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada is the only part which belongs in the lead. The fact that some people still question the nationhood nevertheless should be in the article proper, as it is much less notable. Premier Harper was rather clear that the criterion of inclusion was self-identification, and not whether one had ancestors in the Quebec French community. He was also clear that this recognition did not grant any additional specific powers to the province, so I'm unsure what legitimately remains to be questioned or clarified.--Ramdrake 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but change Quebecois for Quebec. Quebecois is the name of a native from Quebec ! An inhabitant ! And I prefer Charles Taylor, because its definition is not the legal one but the politico-philosophical one. And it corresponds to the definition in Wikipedia too. Finaly, the article "Quebecois" is confusing and it means Quebecker. Pgsylv 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we discussing here while Soulscanner is editing without discussing ? Pgsylv 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole subject on Quebec's nationhood is definitely worth mentioning, and I also now see Ramdrake's point on the caveat. The wording that was originally accepted to by a few editors — including Pgsylv — was the wording presented by Ramdrake (see above). The issue now is not so much a wording problem, but more of a behavioral issue with Pgsylv, who first agrees to an acceptable compromise, then decides to edit against consensus and revert the introduction to an earlier version. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's an issue, I think we can write it off as saying that everybody is entitled to making mistakes. Yes, Pgsylv's behaviour has been insistent to the point of disruption, but if we find a compromise he can rejoin, I think we can satisfactorily resolve two issues at once. I'd much rather find a solution than someone to blame for the problem.--Ramdrake 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but lets wait until we have resolved this issue. It is complicated enough without having another editor disrupt the debate. I think Ramdrake moving the issue to focus on the Parliamentary motion is a step in the right direction; at issue is whether putting this in the lead sentence without a caveat puts too much weight on the subject. It is difficult to discuss this when someone constantly reverts the text that is being discussed. --Soulscanner 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is to stop the confusion around "Quebecois" and "Quebec". The nation is called Quebec in all litterature , except in S. Harper motion, for political reasons. He said he was not refering to the legal concept of nation but to the philosophical one. If S. Harper is doing Philosophy at the Parliament fine, but there are better Academics that could do the job just like Bouchard and Taylor. I suggest we use their wording. Plus, in all dictionaries you will find that "Quebecker" and "Quebecois" are synonymus. Pgsylv 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pgsylv, while I understand your point, please consider that 1)the Federal government is the highest (read most authoritative) level of government to have made this recognition (and also the highest that is entitled to make it) and that, even should we all agree that "Quebec" rather than its people ("Quebecois" or "Quebecers" your pick) actually forms the nation, somewher down the road, someone may disagree enough to remove the mention, By writing down only what is incontrovertible fact, we ensure a greater stabiliity for this change in the future. There is an old expression which I think applies here: "A bad compromise is better than a good war". Wouldn't you agree? (And please, to any and all editors, I'm not implying this is a bad compromise at all).--Ramdrake 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to say that all this time that I've been arguing, "word it as the reference words it", it felt as though my comments were falling on deaf ears, but you now — in your own words — agree... interesting. Anyhow, as long as the caveat with its references remains in the "Quebec as a nation" section, then the "uncertainty" portion should be removed from the introduction. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is only part of the issue. There is also the question of whether putting this in the lead sentence overemphasizes the importance of this Parliamentary motion; it would be more appropriate to put it in a brief paragraph in the lead section that explains Quebec nationalism, where the caveat would read better. Is the parliamentary motion important enough to put in the lead? Does it compare in importance, for example, to the fact that most Quebecers are French-speaking or French Canadian or events such as the referenda of 1980 and 1995? Is this as important as the fact that there is a strong independence movement in Quebec? I do not believe so, which is why it should be mentioned after these more significant facts. --Soulscanner 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Ramdrake here; the single sentence as he suggests in his first response to this section provides probably the best compromise that I've seen; it acknowledges the nationhood question and provides a factual statement as to the government recognition. I'm sure the philosophical discussions regarding whether it is Quebec or the Quebecois that "nation" should refer to can be placed into the later section, using Pgsylv's references at that point. Getting into deep philosophical discussions in the lead of an article probably isn't the best route to take. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't address the issue of whether the topic is appropriate for the lead. The real political issue here is the amount of autonomy Quebec should have within Canada. This motion, while related to this, does not really address it. The two referendums Quebec had on sovereignty are far more significant events than the passage of this symbolic Parliamentary motion, which has no real legal affect. --Soulscanner 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I think it's important to show that there is difference between Quebecker and Quebecois. Quebec is just a province with french canadians living there and all around Canada. It's wonderful how Canada has given so much to the french canadians in the province of Quebec of the nation of the Quebecois with inhabitants called Quebeckers. We have showed that we all love this great nation wich is Canada from coast to coast and that's why we care about little definitions. So if I go on wikipedia I will find very complex things about Quebec. At least I know that it exists and that's the important thing with wikipedia. Farewell. Pgsylv 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can I propose that the sentence beginning "As of 2006..." be moved into the third paragraph, immediately after the sentence discussing the referendums? Then I'd like to bring the first and second paragraphs together, as the geographical information makes far more sense as the first paragraph. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree 100%. I had done this previously, but the article was reverted. I feel this puts the issue on proper context (or as much as can be done in a paragraph). But let's wait for Ramdrake to consent. --Soulscanner 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have resolved much here, but this compromise suggestion seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Perhaps the sentence on the Quebecois nationhood issue could be moved further down the lead so that it can be contextualized. Please make your opinion on this known:

The official language of Quebec is French; it is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French Canadian, and where English is not an official language at the provincial level. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement, and has had controversial referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995. As of 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada"[5][6][7] although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means. ( click here for discussion)--Soulscanner 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the truth. Both referendums were controversials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 20:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

So ugly... I can't believe this ! This is terrible ! soulscanner you are of bad faith ! Incredible !

It's childish for every editor involved. Why don't we rather keep discussing in talk until we reach some consensus and then adjust accordingly? This edit war is not helping the article for anyone.--Ramdrake 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not minor—whether or not to include something that refers to "Québécois" in the lead section of an article on Quebec, and whether or not to qualify that something if it is included is a pretty major issue. Please—Pgsylv and Dorvaq in particular—discuss and hash out a compromise. Lexicon (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My suggestion for a solution is above, at the bottom of the "Wording of the lead" section - may have been lost in the shuffle here, but I still fel it's a good approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the situation quite fascinating that only I seem to see just how utterly useless any further discussion here will serve to prevent any future edit warring. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the problem now is not so much a wording issue, but a behavioral problem regarding Pgsylv as he/she has made it clear that he/she will not be happy with anything less than "Quebec is a nation". Pgsylv has also made it clear that he/she no longer wishes to discuss, nor is he/she willing to respect consensus, which is why I am so fascinated by all of this as I have seen editors get blocked for much less disruptive behavior than what we've experienced with Pgsylv.

Ramdrake, you mention that playing the blamimg game is not the right direction to take when seeking a solution — which I agree with to a certain extent — but how many more edit wars will Pgsylv have to initiate before you realize that discussion is not a solution as he/she is not willing to compromise.

Regardless... do you really want me to discuss my point any further? Why not? Let's see if restating the same point I've been reiterating over and over again since the onset of the feud will help to make a difference this time around:

All I ask for is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines be followed — which means; I could care less what we put in the lead, as long as whatever claim appears in the lead is properly sourced and referenced, and that consensus is respected.

That being said, there is nothing more for me to discuss and I don't even understand why I needed to discuss all of this *again* in the first place to explain my reversions. So Lexicon, go ahead and remove the protection from the article as I give you my word I will no longer revert any of Pgsylv's edits regardless of consensus. — Dorvaq (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's acceptable, Dorvaq. I want to see a proper resolution of this conflict, and if removing the protection would simply mean that a good editor would sit back and let what he thought were bad edits stand, then we do not have an acceptable solution. Perhaps another RfC is in order, one advertised on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board to get broader input? Lexicon (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, consensus can exist without unanimity, and by my reckoning, there are still several divergent but reasonable opinions out there. Except now, I don't have the time to summarize each position so that we may discuss to try to get to some consensus. I'll try over the next day or two.--Ramdrake 00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now, Dorvaq is erasing what I write in the discussion ! What I wrote was:

Ask a German what is his nation and he will answer: "Germany". Ask a French: "France", an English: " England " a Quebecois : "Quebecois" . That sounds really funny to me. Pgsylv 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how dorvaq and his friends are of bad faith. They take MY reference (Charles Taylor) that I wrote myself to reinforce the idea that Quebec is a nation , but they moved it to reinforce their argument that " although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means. " . That is very cunning, but miserable. Pgsylv 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think here lies the problem. You wrote this here to reinforce the contentious and much-debated issue that Quebec is a nation, presenting it as an uncontested fact. This is a plain case of trying to promote a highly politicized point of view. It's a simple fact that there is considerable debate over what "nation" means. It is obvious on this page and by the various references (including Charles Taylor). Removing references to important references that contradict his POV is particularly repugnant. There is nothing "miserable" about putting a POV into context. --Soulscanner 05:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, write down that " Quebec is a province and a nation in Canada". That is the truth and that is what should be written in an Encyclopedia. Only die-hard Federalists outside Quebec will disagree with that. 70% of the Population of Quebec is identifying to the Quebec Nation. You think there is only one Nation in Canada? Don't you see that Quebeckers are ready to stay in this country? It's just a matter of few words and ideas? Why do you insist that we talk french from cost to cost when we know it'S only in Quebec (except for few groups that have been assimilated outside the borders of Quebec). So you wan the war in 1763 and you think we stopped to exist at this time? You are dreaming ! It's because of people like you that there is a SEPARATIST mouvement in Quebec that will never die. If Canada could write in its constitution that Quebec is a nation, PQ would die with the mouvement! The problem is that you will never write it down because of extremists like Dorvaq and Soulscanner wich read history from a biaised position, the colonialist one. They hate differences, they hate the others, their attitude is Xenophobic and intolerant. It's sad to have to discuss with people like that. Pgsylv 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we can make things clear, are you a separatist ? Tomj 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separatist? No. I would say I am a philosopher. I like Charles Taylor. Pgsylv 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one's political affiliation is a particularly inappropriate question to ask, especially considering the subject of this debate. That's a potential opening for an ad hominem attack.--Ramdrake 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Quebec is a nation" debate is on the agenda of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois. They use it to promote sovereignist (i.e. seperatist) sentiment in Quebec. They know that many, particulrly in the Western Canadian caucus of the governing Conservative party object to it, and that it could ignite ill feelings between Quebecers and Westerners if the issue turns into a shouting match in Parliament. This article has been here for years without placing this partisan assertion on top of the page, and it seems suspicious that this would all of a sudden appear here and be promoted by a person who obviously has a political and ideological agenda. The fact is it is a provocative statement that would be either heavily contested by some (as is the case here) and minimized by others. Personally, I think the political affiliations here are obvious, so there's no need to go into them; they are, however, highly relevant. However, I recognize that some here are mature enough to put their political views aside to realize what a neutral treatment of the subject would be; others are not. --Soulscanner 05:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few points for discussion:

• The subject of Quebec or Quebecois "nationhood" is contentious. Even the phrasing of Quebec vs. Quebecois ignites heated controversy. Quebec nationalists wish to promote the idea of Quebec's "specificity" and "distinctness" from the rest of Canada. One way of doing this is to promote the idea of a "Quebec nation". On the other hand, many in the other provinces (particularly in Alberta) wish to promote the idea that provinces are equal, and that Quebec is a "province like the others". One side would put the proposition of Quebec nationhood in the lead, others would remove this entirely.
• From the standpoint of Wikipedia, starting an article with a contentious political assertion invites edit wars and general unreasonableness. This subject will be perpetually revisited, and the discussion page turned into a debating forum about Quebec politics. It's important that mention of this topic treat this topic neutrally.
• This article is a Class A article of high importance. It is about the territory of Quebec. Whereas the politics of the province is relevant, it is not the most important subject. Moving this topic down in the lead section as recommended by Tony Fox above is perfectly reasonable in this regard. It also affords the possibility of putting this debate about the "Quebec nation" (which often appears in international reports) in the context of what is known as "the national question" in Quebec and "the Quebec question" elsewhere in Canada. I think even here we're inviting more trouble, as everyone will want to weigh in with their own take on this contentious subject. On the the "Quebec question" is likely to be something that many Wikipedians come here for, and they deserve a summary. I think this subject is better dealt with at the articles Quebecois and Quebec nationalism, which are more directly and transparently devoted to questions of Quebec identity and politics. --Soulscanner 06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with Soulscanner and think that some of us are losing sight of our reason for being here: to produce a factual article devoid of POV.

• Re.: The subject of Quebec or Quebecois "nationhood" is contentious... While a majority of people may consider something to be, the belief does not necessarily constitute reality. Quebec is no more different from the other distinct areas of Canada than they are from any other place in Canada. The Canadian House of Commons recognized that the Quebecois are a nation within a united Canada. This does not carry any weight in law and does not change Quebec's status as a Canadian province. The use of the word Quebecois refers to the population, not the province, so given Quebec's long and important history and power within Canada, the mention of the Quebec people's nationhood seems to be too trival and not appropriate for placement in the lead of this article on The Province of Quebec. Furthermore, the use of the French word "Quebecois" obfuscates the intended meaning of the House of Commons' English-language declaration. I, an anglophone who lived the first 45 years of my life in Montreal, always understood that when used in an English conversation, the word Quebecois meant an inhabitant of Quebec who is primarily French speaking or of French ancestry. "The Quebecois" was a subset of Quebecers, who were residents of Quebec regardless of linguistic, ethnic, or geographic origin. [While speaking French, I have also been "corrected" in my referring to myself as Quebecois...some francophone Quebecers seem to demand a standard higher than self-identification as a resident of Quebec to the word Quebecois], so the House of Commons' use of the word Quebecoise in an English-language declaration is confusing... does it refer only to the francophones or all Quebecers?

• Re.: Starting an article with a contentious political assertion invites edit wars and general unreasonableness... Again, I agree. The article looks great as is with Quebec as a Nation at the bottom of the History section. I say bottom here only because it is chronologically the latest developement.

• Re.: This subject is better dealt with at the articles Quebecois and Quebec nationalism... In my humble opinion, the placement of the question of nationhood in the article and the treatment given is appropriate as it stands at this moment. Further details on this topic should be dealt with elsewhere. CWPappas 07:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CWPappas's for your summary of your point of view and personal experiences. I don't want this to derail the focus of the discussion. Some of the topics brought up here could (and probably will) lead to all sorts of digressions. I'll ask that editors here focus on points directly related to moving the second sentence in the lead. Thanks. --Soulscanner 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to record my strong disagreement with many of the points mentioned above: while in several parts of Canada the population still does not wish to recognize Quebec (or its inhabitants, if you feel the distinction is important) as anything else than just another province, the Harper motion of 2006 and the promulgation of 2003 by the National Assembly say otherwise. Of course, ths recognition does not entail any additional powers whatsoever and is aimed at the cultural, historical and linguistic aspects of Quebecers forming a nation within Canada. In this sense, the Harper motion tried to be as apolitical as possible in a politically very charged situation. The contention that this article is strictly about the province seems to gloss over the fact that there are huge sections about its history, its people, its demolinguistics, etc. The article is pretty much as much about the people as about the province. Furthermore, I fail to understand this reasoning that "since it grants no additional powers, the motion bears little weight"; it seems to me like an attempt at trivializing the recognition that the Harper motion attempted to give. The factual, verifiable fact is that this recognition has been granted, and that before that it was a paramount aspect of the self-definition of Quebecer, therefore its place should be prominent in the lead, and not relegated as an afterthought to the introduction, or worse in another article altogether.--Ramdrake 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with ramdrake. Pgsylv 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Quebec is a distinct society, the political expression of a nation, and the great majority lives within its border. - Charles Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, Harper's recognition is an important point, and any discussion of Quebec as a province would be incomplete if we didn't discuss the concept of Quebec as a nation. It's definitely something that deserves a place in the lead, but the problem is that the way it's phrased at present that becomes the first key piece of information about Quebec that readers come up to. To paraphrase the lead: "Quebec is a Canadian province - and its people have been described as a nation within Canada but nobody's sure what that means - that's known as La Belle Province, and is located here." To me, that statement really leaps out of nowhere and diverts the reader's attention. This is why I've suggested that we keep the geographical information together, then bring the recognition notion in during the second or third paragraph of the lead where nationalism is discussed. It ensures that the "nation" point is placed above the fold, as it were, and cleans up the flow of the lead. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec constitutional problem can be summed up thus - how to reconcile the imperatives that flow from certain fundamental facts. I see four such facts:

1 - Quebec is a distinct society, the political expression of a nation, and the great majority lives within its border. - Charles Taylor