Talk:Quebec/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Unprotecting

The page has been protected for over a month now, so I'm going to unprotect it as a test. Any signs of the edit war flaring up again though and the page will be re-protected. So try to behave yourselves and don't edit war. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among the Academics of Quebec with "Quebec is a nation"

I proved that there is a consensus with Charles Taylor, Bouchard, Pelletier, Paquin. Who could show , demonstrate, proove that there is no consensus in Quebec with the statement that "Quebec is a nation"? Now, please put "Quebec" instead of "Quebecois", or I'll just write it down myself. Pgsylv 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the consensus must be in Quebec. I'm certain that Canadian...even American authors are entitled to as much validity as Quebecer authors. A discussion on Quebec doesn't require a person to be Quebecois. I'm not, but I'm interested. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a concensus among Academics in Quebec, it means the nation of Quebec exists, respecting the "axiom" of self-recognition. Nobody else then Quebeckers can recognize theirselves as a nation. For exemple, if the American Academics declare that Quebeckers saying they are from the Quebec nation are in reality from the Canadian nation, it's not valid. If someone from Toronto decides that all Quebeckers are in the Canadian nation, it's not valid either. If 70% of the Quebeckers answer they recognize theirselves as Quebeckers, then you have a nation. Quebec is a quasi-sovereign nation. It's now up to us to decide what we want to be. Please read Reconciling Two Solitudes from Charles Taylor, you'll love it. Pgsylv 19:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a consensus in Quebec. One of my readings has proven it. Give me a few hours to write up the information, and I will post it here, because I do not have time right now. Also, if no one outside of Quebec agrees that it is a nation, then the claim is irrelevant as it is not recognized. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a separatist through and through. The fact is there is no such thing as proof on this subject. A large number of Quebecers including myself consider Quebec to be a Nation. Life in Quebec is culturally a vastly different experience than anywhere else in Canada. A VAST majority of people outside Quebec disagree, most of this VAST majority of disagreeers have never lived in Quebec. It's a matter of knowing the difference only because you live there. IMHO Canada's cultures (I mean in the way of life definition) are divided as such: Northern, Western Canadian, Quebecer, Eastern Maritime culture. Of course there are smaller distinctions within these groups, and only having lived in all regions can one truly appreciate that. People who have not actually lived in ALL above areas simply do not understand that angle. It just happens to be that the Quebecois culture is the only one to coincide with provincial lines, the other cultures are more inline with regions than provinces. NO SUCH THING AS PROOF that is the key wording. Think of Tibet trying to declare itself a nation against the Chinese, the Chinese will never agree. IT'S OPINION, IT'S HEART. Within Quebec, the anglophones (like my mother) are numerous enough to tip scales when it comes to trying to quantify those sentiments. Unanimity among anglophones is close to 100% whereas unanimity among francophones is more around 70%. The major factor in Québécois NOT seeing themselves as a Nation are two-fold, elderly people were fed tons of fear propaganda in the 80s when the issue was really hot, and today, the younger generation are less politicised and think first about their wallets and nationalism is low on their priority scale. IN CONCLUSION since there is no proof, one can only state the following: A majority of Quebecers consider Quebec a Nation. What outsiders think is completely irrelevant.--Tallard 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I glad you feel that way, but I'm not trying to stir any nationalist/separatist sentiment. Your personal beliefs are exactly that: your personal beliefs. That does not make them fact. I agree that life in Quebec is significantly different from life in other parts of the country, because I have lived there. However, that life is not due to a territorial nation, it is due to a cultural and social nation. Either way, I'm demonstrating, as Pgsylv requested, that there are intellectuals outside and inside Quebec that feel it is not a nation. As well, if you had read my article, the names Dominique Clift, Michel Morin and Claude Bertrand are far from being anglophones. Finally, wikipedia is a community based encyclopedia. We must obtain a consensus on facts. Therefore, if people do not believe that a fact exists, or that it is only a claim, then a solution must be found to resolve it. Based on that, outside opinion is extremely relevant. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I DID read your essay, but it just did not speak to me, sorry :( I think it relies on some fallacies... I think objectivity on this point is an illusion, so people may as well know where we come from. Those with the pretension of «objectvity» I do not trust. My family's bilingual, my brother and I are on the Nation side, my mother and sister aren't, my N-S mother's lived in Quebec since 1969, and she still can't speak French... But you're right, it's not about anecdotal evidence (like your essay and my family concerns) it's about statistical validity. So what's so wrong with simply stating a majority of Quebecers think «Nation», of course some don't, there's no argument there... But ROC opinions are completely irrelevant on this issue. Fact is the Québécois form a nation that includes some allophones, but not all. Many allophones cling to other lifestyles, that's their choice, it's a free world and they're free to follow their own light. But fact is, the only «fact» we have, a majority is a majority, still...Good night :) --Tallard 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also read Andrew's essay, and while it is quite interesting, I can't but observe that it falls prey to the same fallacy as a part of our discussion so far: obviously, those who argue that Quebec is not a nation (especially from within Quebec) are speaking of a nation as a sovereign political entity, which Quebec demonstrably isn't; those on the other hand who argue that Quebec is a (non-sovereign, of course) nation argue from the socio-cultural and also from the ethnolinguistic aspects. Except for Joe Clark, I don't see anyone denying that Quebec is at least a socio-cultural nation. Let's please accept that there are at least two separate meanings of "nation" and let's be specific about which type of nation it has been argued that Quebec represents. Of course, there can also be residents of Quebec who don't identify with the Quebec/Quebecois nation, but that's the same everywhere (anybody remember Sting's song "An Englishman in New York"? That makes it pretty obvious that not every resident in any nation will choose to identify themselves with the nation they reside in, and that doesn't detract from the fact that the nation still exists - or does someone want to argue that the USA aren't a nation?). In the end, Quebec as a people is undeniably a socio-cultural nation (testified to by the fact that a large majority of Quebecers think so), and it's proper and good that many academics and politicians recognize it, it's fitting that its own government proclaimed it, and that even the Canadian government recognized it. The fact that the federal government couched this recognition in ambiguous terms should not detract from the fact that it is only one of a myriad sources that accept Quebec/Quebecers as a nation.--Ramdrake 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My essay was written to provide sources to Pgsylv of intellectuals who feel Quebec is not a nation. It was not intended to prove that Quebec isn't a nation. The ambiguity of the definition of nation used in this discussion is why I recommended in an above post that we do not add the phrase "Quebec is a nation" to the article. I reinforced that proposal with the fact that there is not a consensus among intellectuals that Quebec is a nation, and backed that statement with the sources I provided in the essay.

I am not trying to say Quebec is or isn't a nation. My personal beliefs are not what Wikipedia is founded on. I made a mistake with my essay due to my personal feelings, and I became sidetracked from my original point, which is what I stated above: we should not write that Quebec is a nation because there is not a consensus and the word nation is ambiguous. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with you Ramdrake (and Pgsylv for that matter). Obviously nobody's saying that the borders of Québec constitute a seperate political Nation. However the present formulation of «Québécois form a nation» is not quite sufficient either, as our Nationhood is not so indistinct as to represent only individuals. The Québec government is the voice of this majority of Québécois (I dislike French Quebecer because it has a diminutive connotation (we don't say English Americans do we?????, it's a sensitive subject, yes...:). Hence this cultural nationhood we speak of is more than «Québécois are a Nation», because cultural Nationhood is the official position of both our direct government AND our voice at the Canadian level, indeed, «Québec» is a nation within Canada (what on earth is that unified bit I don't care for it as Québec never joined Canada, it's a war victory, nothing more... and Québécois were treated as such until the middle of the 20th century when Québécois finally stood up for themselves)--Tallard 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Andrew, I take exception on two points: one, most of the sources he provides (with the possible exception of Joe Clark) manifestly refer to the definition of nation as a "sovereign entity", which Quebec manifestly isn't, and nobody here disputes this fact. Second, not saying that Quebec is a nation, at least in the ethno-cultural sense is tantamount to saying it isn't a nation. Moreover, I'd like to point out for the nth time that the definition of nation isn't ambiguous: there are at least two definitions, one that of a sovereign state and one of the ethno-cultural entity. If we only make it clear that we are speaking of a nation in the ethno-cultural sense, we are successfully addressing all claims of ambiguity. While there may be detractors to the concept of Quebec as an ethno-cultural nation (there are detractors to every concept), I believe just the fact that nearly 80% of Quebecers define themselves as being part of a nation should demonstrate that there is indeed consensus among Quebecers to call themselves a nation. Consensus doesn't need unanimity, last time I checked. The opinion of people in the ROC shouldn't be counted on equal footing, as not all of them (I would dare say even only a minority of them) are fully aware of the Quebec culture, except maybe to decry it.--Ramdrake 19:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about defining nation when stating it. I agree that Quebec is an ethno-cultural nation. I had issues with the generic "Quebec is a nation" without a clear description of what nation is. Not trying to argue with what you say, but I am aware of the Quebec culture; the purpose of that writing was to provide sources for Pgsylv. I do not decry the culture but I believe saying "Quebec is a nation" without description is an ambiguous statement that can be applied by separatist individuals to advance their agenda. That is why I recommended not stating it, because I felt that exclusion was the optimal solution to our argument. However, I would prefer defining nation within that sentence over ignoring it altogether. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If your objection was merely the unqualified use of the word "nation" without specifying which definition of nation one refers to, then I fully agree with you. Quebec can be said to be a nation in a specific sense of the word, namely ethno-cultural. I feel that to deny that it is a nation at least in the ethno-cultural sense is tantamount to not accepting reality. In this case, would you care to write up a formulation which you feel would be appropriate? Also, please accept my apologies for the earlier confusion.--Ramdrake 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was trying to say ^^. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to phrasing into the intro something along the lines Quebec is a nation in the ethno-cultural sense of the word, or somesuch? Anybody who feel they can better phrase it are welcome to make suggestions, of course.--Ramdrake 23:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose that wording, we stick with the actual wording agreed upon in parliament, that's the the verifiable fact.--Tallard 10:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I support that phrasing. Let's start over on the left side. If you want to reword this into a new thread, Ramdrake, feel free to move my reply as well. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 00:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support that phrasing nor its placement in the lead. Most of us agree that Quebec is not a territorial nation and seeing that this is an article chiefly concerned with the territory, i.e. the Province of Quebec, I do not feel that nationhood mentioned in the lead is merited. Because Quebec is not a territorial nation, and that the alternative "ethno-cultural nation" refers to a population, then it should read something like "Quebeckers form and ethno-cultural nation..." and be included in one of the sections concerned with the people(s) of Quebec. To say "Quebec is a nation in the ethno-cultural sense of the word" implies that the territory has some ethno-cultural characteristics that only people can have. CWPappas 07:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we come back to the original phrasing, that is that the Quebecois form a nation. The specific meaning of the word nation in this case can be inferred as the ethnocultural meaning of nation, as the "sovereign" meaning applies pretty exclusively to the territory. I would also like to challenge the notion that this article is concerned chiefly with the territory, as at least 8 (or 9) of the 13 sections have to do with history, population, demographics, culture, etc. So, no this article isn't mainly about the geography of Quebec, obviously.--Ramdrake 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you are correct that this article is not mainly about the geography of Quebec. My apologies. I tend to contribute late at night, sometimes hurriedly. Maybe saying that the article is not mainly about Quebec's politics and national identity would be closer to what I meant (I'm even more tired tonight so please bear with me!!). The body of the article starts off with geography, and eventually discusses her history and politics. The present placement of the Quebec as a Nation section seems to be the best place for mention of the National Assembly's and Parliament's motions on Quebec's nationhood. The present placement and wording, in my opinion, are perfect the way they are. The linking of the word Quebecois to its own Wiki page allows the reader to determine for him/herself what the heck Quebecois means. Placing such a statement in the lead would lend too much importance on these declarations. If you tend to believe that too much is made over Quebec nationhood, then inclusion in the lead would inflate the importance to such declarations. If you strongly feel that the Quebec is a nation, then Quebec's nationhood has not received nearly the recognition it deserves. Either way, the declarations are trivial and not worth putting in the lead. The article flows nicely now. CWPappas 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-internet resources

I have just borrowed several texts from a local library by various authors (politicians, professors, etc) that deal with nationhood in Quebec. I require several days to go through them so that I may bring important points here to the debate. I will post my findings soon. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished writing my review of two books that demonstrate a clear lack of consensus among intellectuals inside and outside Quebec. See my finding here. Please comment on it here. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Go back to work. Your "demonstration" is not valid. When I read things like you wrote, I just wish Quebec separates from Canada and builds its own state. I thought it would be possible to have a dialogue with the Canadians but I realize it is impossible. Pgsylv 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from insulting you, but I can no longer assume good faith from you. If all you want is to push a political view, this is not the place for you. I will not make this a personal issue as you wish to do. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 16:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not personal, but your work is not valid. It doesn't matter what academicians outside Quebec think of this debate. Your references are biaised. Pgsylv 17:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your references are biased as well. And it does matter what intellectuals outside Quebec think, because Quebec is also a part of Canada, a part of North America, and a part of the world. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My references are not biased. They reflect the reality. What the intellectuals outside Québec think is not important in this debate. It's up to the Quebeckers. If 6 millions individuals living in the province of Quebec recognize theirselves as Quebeckers, the nation of Quebec exists. If 1 guy from Alberta says it is not a nation, who cares, it is not his business. Pgsylv 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your references are biased because they represent the political views of the people that wrote them. What the intellectuals outside of Quebec think is just as important as the intellectuals inside Quebec think because simply claiming something is invalid if others do not accept it. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles Taylor is a Federalist ! WHAT THE INTELLECTUALS OUTSIDE OF QUEBEC THINK ABOUT MY IDENTITY DOESN'T MATTER. What you write is pretty dangerous. You shall not decide who I am. Pgsylv 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about your identity, this is about the identity of the region that your people live in along with other nations. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, bad faith is not demonstrated here. If someone pushes POV (even if it is blatantly obvious) and really believes it is objectively true, it is not bad faith. Bad faith requires knowingly writing false information. --Soulscanner 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pgsylv, if what you think is all that matters in identifying yourself as part of a nation, why do you care what intellectuals inside OR outside of Quebec think? CWPappas 06:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Quebec

Pardon me if this conversation is archived somewhere, but my discussions with linguists on the subject of the correct pronunciation lead to the «kebek» sound being the appropriate pronunciation in ENGLISH as well as French. The reason being that the qu sound has no reason to be whatsoever, as the original First Nation word was «kebek» and the only reason Quebecers spell with a «qu» is that k, although in the French alphabet, is not really used, as it's origins are NOT FRENCH. I really think that those other ugly pronunciations can be mentioned, but readers should be told what the proper pronunciation is.--Tallard 08:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't use it, pronouncing kʰwəˈbɛk with the qu sound is very common in Atlantic and Western Canada. Kebek is the correct pronunciation in French, but there are several ways in English. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm entirely aware of common use. The point I'd like to make is that linguists say it's not the correct pronunciation, in English. This should be noted in the article, so that people may know the right way...--Tallard 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I misinterpreted what you said before. I have to start drinking more coffee. I agree with you, the proper pronunciation should be highlighted. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:) Well my prob is I don't have the resources on hand to make the correction and I was hoping an administrator would see this try to do something about it... I'm real new to this project and I'm not sure what other appropriate channels exist in this case, do you?--Tallard 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses, boys! As an anglophone who lived in Quebec for around 45 years I never heard another Quebec anglophone use the "kebek" pronunciation in an English conversation...always the kwabek version. Perhaps your linguists are talking about the how the kebek version is closer to the original First Nation pronunciation and not what is most commonly used by the resident anglophone population. What does K or QU have to do with anything? They have the same value as phonemes and, besides, the First Nations didn't use an alphabet with either a k or a qu—they are European imports! CWPappas 08:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, same as when they said the earth was round ;) What is common use and what is appropriate use are different concepts. Had the letter K been a regular part of the French language, the French would have spelled KEBEK and Wolfe's followers would have said kebek. The Qu is for the benefit of French language only and should not have inched it's way into the English pronunciation. But it's like I said, I am out of province right now and don't have access to the proper resources for this topic, so I can't do anything about this anyway... I'm hoping for a proper linguist to pick it up... :)--Tallard 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand how a linguist speaking about the pronunciation in English can say that the anglophone residents of Quebec can be wrong and a pronunciation used by non-anglophones and non-Quebecker anglophones is correct. Which linguist did you hear this from? Do you have a source? I'm really surprised. I'd like to check what these linguists wrote and drop them a line. CWPappas 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The linguists and translators I worked with years ago in Montreal at an Int'l translation firm. Just think of it this way, had the French spelled it kebek, would you be saying kweebec, kuubec today, NO. So the common English pronunciation is erroneously mimicking the French alphabet instead of the French phonetics. That's the reasoning. But as I mentioned, I personally don't know the online linguistics resources, don't have access to good sources here in Whitehorse, and haven't been in touch with that company since 1999, so I'm waiting patiently and hopefully for a proper linguist to come around and discuss this. oh and just for precision, I AM a Québécois anglophone, doesn't that just kick! :) --Tallard 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Read any dictionary. Dictionaries document how the language is used, they do not prescribe, which is why they identify all common pronounciations, the opinions of unnamed translators and linguists nowithstanding. --Soulscanner 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot apply one language's phonology to a word's usage in another language. For example, the word "Paris"...it is a French word pronounced par-ee but in English the proper pronunciation is pa-ris. Same thing with Saigon... the people living in Saigon pronounce it Shai-gon. In Greek, Greece is prounounced ellas but in Engish there is an enirely different word...the "new" word, or pronunciation, is not incorrect in the adopting language even if the pronunciation in the original language is possible within the adopting language's phonology. CWPappas 06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Paree is not the issue here, I'm not aware of the issues at hand there. I am aware of the Québec and Brussels issues... the fact is the linguists I knew 7 years ago said the proper way was to forget the u influence. The name Brussels in French had the reverse scenario, Bruxelles ended up being spelled with an X although the proper pronunciation was SS, it is simply a written French alphabet issue. CALL to PROPER LINGUISTS PLEASE :)--Tallard 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "Paris" may not be the issue here but it is the same principle...when a word in one language is adopted into another, the adopting language's own phonology dictates the proper pronunciation in that language, not the pronunciation in the original tongue. CWPappas 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FOR disambiguation page and AGAINST endless futile debates

It is really unfortunate that under a dozen people are participating on this debate. It appears to be a couple of Englishsmen arguing a futile debate with a couple of Québécois on an issue where cultural differences make consensus impossible. IMPOSSIBLE, just as there is no all encompassing consensus for Tibet or Basque Country, among others. We need to get away from all this bickering, nagging and arguing and simply admit we interpret the facts and references differently, that is a fact. Let's create a disambiguation page:

• Québec, Historical Nation
• Quebec, Province of Canada

That way the Province of Canada page can be relatively stable, and should include/emphasize administrative differences between Quebec and the other provinces, and let the Québec, Historical Nation (insisting on accent) take over culture, tourism economy, politics, history, etc. If Tibet and Basque Country's example hold true here, the Provincial page will settle, whereas the Nation page will see action. That way everyone gets what they want. The anglophone Canadians readers MAY mostly refer to the Province page, students MAY refer to either, internationals will refer to either, and it especially will clarify things to foreigners who deserve to gain a clearer understanding, which is impossible if the page changes everyday because of endless arguments.--Tallard 22:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That would also sound acceptable to me, as the "geography" page could go back to being only a "geography" page, and it would provide a solution to the current problem, which is now in a deadlock, and must be resolved one way or another.--Ramdrake 12:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above and in some other places, it seems futile to try to settle the question of Quebec's nationhood here and now in Wikipedia especially when articles treating with the history of Quebec and Quebec nationalism are so poor. As these articles and many others on Quebec and Canada improve, the whole body of historical, social, cutural, political and legal evidence on what Quebec was before and is today will take shape and the reasons why Quebecers gave themselves national institutions within a state that is a province of Canada since 1867 will speak for themselves. I do not expect these articles to improve much inside the English language Wikipedia: we are far too few. Rather, quality articles, neutral and well referenced, will emerge in the French language Wikipedia and will be translated to English, probably by bilingual Quebecers or Canadians and Americans who are friends. Hopefully, within 5 years, many of the core myths (those of Quebecers and those of Canadians) entertained by the current political climat, partisanship and all, will be dispelled. Canadians and Quebecers will understand and respect each other more than ever before. This is unlikely to result in greater Canadian unity, but something much better called human solidarity. May God bless America, save the Queen and remeber Quebecers! ;-) -- Mathieugp 12:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I refuse this " Historical Nation", it's not accurate. Quebec is a nation, not a cultural nation, not a historical nation, not a call-it-the-name-you-want nation. All these pages of debate for one single word ! Pgsylv 15:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pgsylv, I so agree with you on the primordial importance of Nationhood, but it's not a battle that we are able to win in this linguistic and political context. Amicalement--Tallard 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Quebec is a nation" is of "primordial importance" only to a subset of particularly ardent Quebec nationalists. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for the declaration of ideological manifestos as objective facts; such claims need to be attributed to those making them in order to be neutral. Otherwise, we'd get statements like "Jesus Christ was the only Son of God" rather than "Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the only Son of God". --Soulscanner 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mathieu, you are blessed with the gift of neutral tone :)

This is what you get when you search for Tibet:

Tibet. This article is about historical/cultural Tibet. For the administrative region of the People's Republic of China, see Tibet Autonomous Region. For other uses, see Tibet (disambiguation).

As Québec has never officially joined Canada and is not signatory to the constitution and has administrative jurisdictions that other provinces don't have (immigration, education, civil law, etc.) It is quite similar to the Tibet and Basque Country situations

I think the best we can do is agree to disagree :)--Tallard 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Very incorrect! Quebec joined Confederation in 1867 but was not a signatory on the constitution (for reasons I agree with). Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, I'm saddened that you have not even read this page's own paragraph on this... :( Quebec the province did not exist before 1867, France lost its hold on the territory through war and Lower Canada was joined by England to Upper Canada to form «Canada», the frenchies living there had no say in this. In 1867, Canada English was joined by other territories to form a confederation. The only frenchy influence here was to gain provincial status, NOT being part of Canada was not an option. The province of Québec is as it is now since that date because it was considered a nice gesture to the frenchies to have some administrative say in their future. But that is different from «Québec joining Canada» Québec never joined Canada. It is the only province not to.--Tallard 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my bad. And I'm a history major too... That was what I was told enough times in secondary that it's hard to get it out of my head. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers mate, no hard feelings.--Tallard 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec is still bound by the Constitution, and of corse by all laws of Parliament, and the Clarity Act. Quebec is part of Canada by the British North America Act 1867 as passed by the UK Parliament: It shall be lawful for the Queen...to declare by Proclamation that...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada ws. Lower Canada (Quebec) as part of the Province of Canada is part of this dominion, and therefore part of Canada from the BNA Act. That's official. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Royalguard, all that you say is true, yet Tallard's point (if I may presume) was that Quebec did not wilfully join Canada (it was joined by what amounts to British Royal decree), nor was it a signatory of the patriation of the Constitution. I would even go so far as to say that, had the tideds of war turned differently in North America two hundred and fiftyish years ago, the territory that is now Canada today would probably be consisting of at least two, possibly more sovereign states.--Ramdrake 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh Royalguard, I just love it when you talk like that «Quebec is still bound» I can just visualise the ropes and knots. You expressed in so few words exactly the state of affairs in Canada bound, just as Tibet is bound to Chinese law and Basque Country is bound to Spain. Binding nations of people against their will and under threat of duress is certainly no way to run a country, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes :). All the facts show Quebec to be distinct, everyone agrees on that, it's a matter of how things are presented, the word nation is not a backburner type of word. My proposal is to say Quebec is the only Canadian province whose people have been declared a nation within Canada by both levels of government. The nation Harper used was not bogged down by a bunch of extra little definitions--Tallard 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to pure facts, Quebecers have rejected sovereignty twice. That doesn't sound like against their will. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ùTallard, what do you mean "willfully"? I don't think anyone knows whether or not the entry of Quebec into the Province of Canada was opposed to the wishes of Quebecers generally. They've certainly had two opportunities to leave confederation, and have chosen not to. Is your argument that Quebec isn't a province? That seems to rebel against common sense and law. fishhead64 06:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fishead64, I believe all your questions will be answered if you read the entire debate on this page.--Ramdrake 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We're digressing more and more, but not wanting to separate once a part of Canada isn't the same as wilfully joining. Quebec became part of Canada through the BNAA, and Quebecers had no say in it. Over a century later, Quebecers twice decided not to secede. That still doesn't mean Quebec joined Canada wilfully. However, I fail to see that any of this has any import on the question whether or not Quebec or Quebecers can be considered a nation.--Ramdrake 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it's a fine idea to use the Tibet article as a model in some ways. The political controversy over Tibet's status is fully accounted for in the lead, and those making the conflicting political claims are identified. It is clearly identified as a question of political autonomy, and vague terms like "nation" are not used to avoid confusion. Why not do that here? Moreover, there is a separate article on the Tibetan people which includes a large the diaspora, and it's made clear that Tibet serves as a homeland for these people just as Quebec serves as a homeland for French Canadians, or if your wish, the Quebecois. Similar pages exist for Basque region/Basque people, Catalonia/Catalans,Serbia/Serbs, Acadia/Acadians, etc. Which page refers to the "nation"; the people or the territory? Or do they avoid vague terminology? --Soulscanner 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the inclusion of Quebec's, Quebeckers', or Quebecoises' national status in the lead and comparing Quebec to Tibet. There are already articles that deal with Quebec Nationalism and the History of Quebec and there already are links to these articles withing the Quebec article in the section that introduces this debate.

Tibet is a completely different situation, having had about 1400 years of autonomy, mixed with interference from China, ending about 50 years ago when China invaded. Quebec, on the other hand, was never it's own country. It belonged to several native nations, then it was a colony of France. By signing the Treaty of Paris, France ceded Quebec along with all of France's North American territories to the British. The French and British had been engaged in a global conflict over territory. Then 1867 happened along and Quebec became a province of Canada. Whether the people of Quebec had a say in this is irrelevant...they were already part of the Province of Canada. Similarly, the Quebec government forced the merger of the Island-of-Montreal suburbs into the City of Montreal. There was no referendum, just a proclaimation from a higher authority. CWPappas 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in discussing this for a while, and disengaged because it's patently obvious that there will never be a consensus on this topic without formal mediation. The political aspect of that "one word" mentioned above will never let this article move forward at the present time, and with the present participants. Pgsylv is intent on his answer to the situation being the only answer to the situation; this is not how consensus works. Attempts to find a middle ground have been shot down repeatedly. My suggestion here is to take a mediation request to the Mediation Committee and have one of the mediators there guide a formal process, because otherwise this is going to continue to eat up talk page space and get nowhere. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation as Tony Fox is and I support his request to start a Request for Meditation. Tomj 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of creating the Quebec, Historical Nation article. There are already articles that deal with Quebec Nationalism and the History of Quebec. The readers don't deserve to have yet another page to confuse their understanding of the issues. Creating a new page will not rid us of the bickering, nagging, and arguing—it will only mean that discussion will move to that new talk page. Furthermore, naming the page Historical Nation would imply that Quebec is, indeed, a nation and that assertion is far from having been clearly established as fact.

As a political or territorial nation, Quebec doesn't fit the bill. There is no border control on the frontiers with her neighbouring provinces, no passports, and even the drivers' licences include a graphic of Labrabor, part of another province. The "national institutions" are subject to Canadian regulation and law. For example, no-one gets near Immigration Quebec without first having been cleared by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada...Immigration Quebec simply cannot grant admittance on its own.

In terms of the population, perhaps a segment of Quebec society constitutes a ethno-cultural nation but I do not believe that this nation is inclusive of all Quebecers. Surely a population that supports efforts to control the numbers of the province's largest minority does not see minorities as being full members of its society. The second sentence in this section states that this discussion is "Englishsmen [sic] arguing a futile debate with a couple of Québécois [sic]" and is a testiment to this if the editor included Anglo-Quebeckers when he wrote the word Englishmen as distict from Quebecoises.

I, too, support his request to start a Request for Meditation. CWPappas 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You quoted me out of context, those words were preceded by: "appears to be a couple of", As far as I know, appears means appears... and a couple is referring to the very few people even bothering to take part, largely I assume due to the futility of it all. I used "Englishmen" as a metaphor of a "dialogue de sourds" between the extreme anglo style and the extreme Québécois style. OK? I'm an anglo born Québécois, mom married a Quebecer, my family speaks English to each other and we have relatives in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The point is there are two solitudes, most anglos within Quebec are Anti «nation» no matter what the facts say and an even higher of percentage of anglos outside of Quebec are Anti «nation». The negative I see with mediation is that I suspect it will end up being a biased process, being that a majority of participants will be from outside of Quebec. It seems very unethical to me to allow the opinion of a large and vocal group of biased outsiders to be able to determine a population's self description because not enough participants from here even visit WP:EN, because is not even an official language here, the only such province, so there could never be a proper representation.

For those with linguistics issues, what if we just call them:

• Quebec, province and «nation within Canada» (outsider approved version)(then nation need not be in the first paragraph)
• Québec, self described nation (the Quebec nationalism articles would be transfered here)

How does that seem?

I still have not read any justification why describing Quebec in the same terms as Tibet and Basque country would be wrong. Are those against splitting Quebec nation/province against the present split status of Tibet and Basque Country as well?--Tallard 08:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that articles are determined through a community process. A mediator would provide a fully neutral party to attempt and shape that consensus. There is no "outsider" or "insider" involved in mediation; the mediator guides all participants to find middle ground. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking over this page, it seems the request for mediation is the best move at this time. This article needs to have its problems resolved, and as a consensus is not forthcoming, mediation is the sensible alternative.Cromdog 02:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend mediation as well. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Splitting into two articles sounds like it would be a POV fork anyway.Professor marginalia 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec nation essay

From a request, I have moved the essay (including comments) I wrote here:

---

In order to produce sources that denounce the claim "Quebec is a nation" to demonstrate that there is not a consensus, I borrowed several texts from a local library. This is a summary of two of the texts, Ramsay Cook's Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism and Joe Clark's A nation too good to lose. I intend to review the remaining four and post my findings.

Ramsay Cook argues that not only is Quebec not a nation, but the attempt to secure this status, the Parti Quebecois' policy, failed due to a lack of consensus among members of the PQ party. Cook states that "making state and nation coincide in Quebec may not have been fully accepted or even understood by all of Lévesque's colleagues in the Lesage government." Even members of the PQ did not believe that Quebec was a nation.

Cook concludes Chapter 7 of his book, titled Has the Quiet Revolution Finally Ended, addressing Lévesque's policy goals by stating "the project of making Quebec the national state of French Canada, it failed." Therefore, Cook does not believe that Quebec is a nation.

Other Quebecois intellectuals that disagree with the claim for the status of Quebec as a nation include Dominique Clift in Le déclin du nationalisme au Québec, arguing that certain CÉGEP intellectuals do not agree, cited by Cook on pages 102-103 , and Michel Morin and Claude Bertrand in Le territoire imaginaire de la Culture, pages 48 and 103, who claim themselves that Quebec is not a nation.

The three Quebecois intellectuals, the undisclosed amount of PQ members and CÉGEP intellectuals, as well as Cook himself all denounce the theory of Quebec as a nation for various reasons. There is clearly a lack of consensus demonstrated in this text.

Joe Clark argues that as a society and culture, Quebec is no different from other provinces. The people are as distinct as Nova Scotians. He continues to promote a cooperation of the provinces of Canada, a decentralized federal state, stating that "separation (of Quebec) would add to the complexity and tension" of Quebec-Canada relations. Clark argues that all the provinces are equal in status in the federation though not uniform in characteristics.

This does not denounce "Quebec is a nation." It promotes "Newfoundland is a nation" or "Alberta is a nation" because all provinces are equally distinct. A symbolic recognition of the status of Quebec as a nation would require recognition of other provinces as nations.

Out of these readings, we see that Cook denounces the status of Quebec as a nation, while Clark argues that recognition of this status requires recognition of all provinces as nations. I personally believe Clark's point is universally accepted when discussing peoples (such as the Quebecois) but is not reflective of provinces' status because the term nation is too ambiguous to use when describing them. All provinces are equal in status in Canada, as provinces that contribute to the greater whole, but that status is not that of nations since every province is a smaller multicultural region that contributes as subordinate to that whole. Nation implies sovereignty (unless the nation is enslaved, which is definitely not the case of Quebec) and the provinces of Canada are not sovereign; they are subordinate to the Dominion of Canada.

Cook's argument is presented as a failure of PQ policy and citation of intellectuals from Quebec. The PQ's attempts to have that status recognized are typical of the party's subtle attempts at separation, which Clark recognized as well.

I conclude that the first two books argue either that Quebec is not a nation or all provinces are nations. This demonstrates clearly that there is not a consensus that Quebec is a nation. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To comment on this, please add to the discussion below:

So do I, in the sense which he uses in this context: Quebec did not reach attain Statehood. This is not in disagreement. --Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Joe Clark an academician? The theory of the equality of provinces is well known: it is in fact in the constitution. There is no one denying that Canada does not wish to change the provincial status of Quebec within Canada. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To equate the regional differences of Anglo-Canadians to differences between Anglo-Canadians and Quebecers is not serious. Quebec also has regionalisms internally like English Canada does. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you use the verb to demonstrate quite liberally here. I fail to see anything remotely resembling a demonstration, whatever the acception of this word is adopted. Cook uses nation in a sense that is not contested by anyone and Clack is using arguments supported by no evidence to support his political vision. Give me quotes from the other guys to see what they really meant to say. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

These sources show unequivocally that there are academics that refute claims of Quebec nationhood; they show clearly that there is no consensus on this subject, not even in Quebec. We are not here to debate these, as we already know you disagree with them. You are confusing your disagreement with the fact that these show that there is no consensus among academics that Quebec is a nation, and that presenting Quebec nationhood as an objective fact pushes the POV of academics who do hold this claim.

I'll add Quebecoise Lysianne Gagnon to the list of intellectuals that outrightly deny the existence of a Quebecois nation, claiming that it is a partisan issue . .

There are also other opinions that distinguish between residents of the province of Quebec and members of the Quebecois nation. Julius Grey, while not denying the existence of a Quebecois nation, states that the majority of anglophones, who do not identify as being part of this nation, cannot be forcible included in the definition agaisnt their will. . This means that any mention of the Quebecois nation needs to take into account the many different meanings that scholars assign to the word nation in order to be neutral. --Soulscanner 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew's essay shows that Ramsay Cook's believes Quebec's Quiet Revolution did not result in Statehood. That is just a plain and simple observation of the facts. It would be hard to disagree.

Joe Clark's political opinion is as academic as that of Lucien Bouchard or Pierre Trudeau. When trying to establish that there is a global warming phenomenon and that it is caused by human activity, the opinion of great oil companies is not where people look for a scientific consensus on the question.

Lysianne Gagnon, who is a paid employee of Power Corporation (through Gesca), long standing ally of Ottawa's nationalism inside Quebec, who is not a scholar, is absolutely in her right to do her job. But it should not prevent free-thinking citizens from gaining knowledge of the truth. You will not see her non-existent "works" cited in many books. Chretien's biography is more likely to make it in Google Scholar! ;-)

I am a member of the body of the citizens of Canada and I was born in Canada. That makes me a natural born member of the Canadian nation and a citizen of the State of Canada. I, like millions of Quebecers, however do not identify as a Canadian the way other citizens do. This will never change anything to the undeniable facts that both the State of Canada and the Canadian nation, however young, exist politically, socially and legally. -- Mathieugp 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have said. Cook discusses academics in his piece, backing up his point of view. Clark, a politician, is an example of the many politicians who have varying views on Quebec and Canada. The State of Canada and the Canadian nation do exist just as the Province of Quebec and the Québécois nation exist. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the body of the citizens of Quebec (Francos, Anglos, Allos) as de facto members of the Québécois nation and the whole body of the citizens of Canada (Anglos, Francos, Allos) as de facto members of the Canadian nation, we are in perfect agreement. :-) What a useless debate, hey? -- Mathieugp 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

---

We are not here to discuss personal issues of identity or even why we think personally that Quebec is not a nation. We are here to argue whether the simple statement pushes a particular ideological POV. Please stick to the issue.

Joe Clark is a respcted Political Scientist who is associated with the defunct Progressive Conservative Party. Charles Taylor is a former NDP politician with close ties to the provincial Liberal party. There is a double standard here. Why accept one and not the other? If we eliminated every academic in Quebec who was actively involved in politics, we would have a very short list. All are acceptable sources. --Soulscanner 05:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget we should be wary of the Trudeauist POV as well if we are to put the finger on statements that push a particular ideological POV. To state the Quebec/Quebecers are not a nation pushes that POV. To state that the French Canadians of Quebec are an (ethnic) nation and that the political community of Quebecers are not a nation (in any way), pushes that POV. All statements to the effect that Quebecers are not a nation pushes the POV of Ottawa against that of Quebec (even when it is not against federalism!). We are not out of the woods if we follow your logic.

When Thinking the Quebec nation was written, only academics who were not involved in politics were selected as participants. That is so partisan discourses, by definition non-neutral, be excluded. Many sources are not acceptable, you and me for example. All partisan discourses must be taken for what they are. -- Mathieugp 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Request for Mediation?

Please summarize your thoughts on a request for Mediation here. I think editors have shown clearly that there is no academic, political, popular or legal consensus as to whether Quebec is a nation, with various references both on the discussion page and on the article itself. I think that those who argue for using "Quebec is a nation" as a fact are pushing a nationalist POV and need to consult Wikipredia's NPOV policy on bias:

All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.Types of bias include:

In particular, editors should note the following specific biases:

• Ethnic or racial: racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;
• Nationalistic: favoring or opposing the interests or views of a particular nation;
• Linguistic bias, favoring certain languages
• Political: bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate;

In particular, a Quebec nationalist bias is leading some editors to use their disagreement with the content of referenced articles to reject them as showing that some academics oppose the idea of Quebec nationhood, or that others define nationhood differently. I'm almost tempted to go right to arbitration because he bias is so blatant. However, I assume good faith as I think many editors really believe that any opposition to their nationalist POV is objectively wrong; ideologies tend to be somewhat absolute that way. Finally, should we go for mediation and clarify whether a categorical statement declaring "Quebec is a nation" is NPOV? --Soulscanner 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with «all contributers» are biased, whether they fess to it or not. Given that the facts are distinct administrative jurisdictions than ROC, non signatory of constitution, majority identify themselves as Québecer above Canadian, and federally recognised nationhood, for people to still be arguing against «nation» is an obvious case of federalist bias or lack of knowledge, the facts are all there. Why must people call it POV when all the facts point to Nation within Canada, it boggles my mind.--Tallard 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to remind Soulscanner that a RfArb is not indicated when normal dispute resolution hasn't at least been attempted, and is usually indicated mostly in cases where there is more at stake than a mere content dispute, often involving blatant user or admin misconduct. While there have been some strong disagreements on this page, and this debate has drawn on for longer than it probably should have, I don't think user behavior has been a major issue, as most exchanges have been rather civil and edit-warring wasn't as blatant as I've seen on other pages. Most of all, I would object to his characterization that the nationhood of Quebec is pushed by Quebec nationalists - besides being a pointless tautology (nationalists are those who favor a nation, by very definiton), the very fact that a majority of Quebecers recognize Qebec as a nation (in some way, at least), would indicate that the majority of Quebecers are nationalists, rather than nationalists being just a smallish faction as user Soulscanner seems to insinuate. In summary, I reiterate what I said further down: if we are to debate this, let's make sure we qualify what kind of nation Quebec is purported to be, and what kind of nation is supporters and detractors say it is, and above all, let's make sure we compare apples to apples.--Ramdrake 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the only claim I make is that several editors here push a nationalist POV (albeit in good faith), and that this POV is contested by many academics, politicians, legal scholars, and ordinary people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. I actually am okay with mentioning that most Quebec nationalists refer to Quebec as a nation. I even added to the lead that Quebec has a strong nationalist and sovereignist movement. To be NPOV, the Quebec nationhood issue needs to be put in this context, and not presented as an objective fact like Quebec being a province. --Soulscanner 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - For reasons stated above. --Soulscanner 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - Based on same reasons. --Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 12:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, with qualifier. While I strongly disagree with Soulscanner on several key points (although I'll be the first to admit he has every right to think whatever he chooses), I would agree to a mediation, provided that the question first define what kind of nation we are talking about here, as there is pretty much a consensus (not unanimous, but a consensus nevertheless) that Quebec isn't a nation in the sense of a "sovereign state", therefore I don't think there is a bona fide dispute on this point. Also, proper determination of whether there is a consensus on Quebec being a nation should take into account the various definitions of "nation" being used by both proponents and dissenters, just so as to ensure whether there is consensus or dissent on nationhood using the same definition.--Ramdrake 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the question here isn't whether anyone is making a claim that Quebec is a sovereign state. The question is if someone who knows nothing about Quebec could reasonably interpret the statement "Quebec is a nation" to mean that a) Quebec is a sovereign state or b) that it should be; presenting it as a fact out of context promotes a Quebec nationalist POV. "Quebec is a province" is a simple statement of fact that everyone agrees upon; "Quebec is a nation" is not. They should not be presented as equivalent statements of fact.

Secondly, the statement "Quebec is a nation" does not define what type of nation we are talking about, and no attempts so far have been made to qualify the statement. The question is not whether a given editor sees it that way, but whether a reader will see it that way. Even among nationalsts, there is no consensus about what nationhood means; it it can mean anything to anybody, which is why it should not be used without explaining the political ideological background of those who promote and oppose the term. This can be done NPOV by fairly describing each POV. I doubt very much that it can be done fairly in the lead, but I am willing to try. --Soulscanner 04:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to strongly differ, as a number of editors here have been trying to properly qualify the statement to ensure that the word nation isn't mistaken to mean sovereign state, just about the only possible meaning of nation Quebec doesn't mean. There has been talk of an 'ethno-cultural nation, a non-sovereign nation, and several others, so please don't tell me that no attempts so far have been made to qualify the statement, as it would indicate you haven't been following this talk page, really. Also, you have so far failed to address in your qualification that Quebec's nationhood is only supported by Quebec nationalists the fact that a majority of the overall population supports the statement, so either Quebec's nationhood should be admitted as being supported by a majority of the population and/or Quebec nationalists should be recognized as constituting a majority of the population in Quebec.--Ramdrake 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, as it's the only way this is article will be able to move forward as anything but a battlefield. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• neutral. I have not researched how mediation usually is run and if it has been satisfactory to participants or has mostly served to force consensus by demographic weight. Since this is WP:EN, I assume that most participants are either American, Canadian, British, Aussie, Kiwi, I can sense demographics will push for a non satisfactory bias from the NON nationers, therefore going against facts. On the other hand, if moderators within WP are professionally trained and see beyond demographics, well maybe...

There are facts for both sides of the argument. That is why we need mediation. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And we need someone impartial to weigh them,or help us weigh them.--Ramdrake 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept the fact that being from an English-speaking country prejudices the mediation process. Please, assume good faith. If someone objects to the mediation process on those grounds, one has to question what that editor is doing here. --Soulscanner 04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But you are calling «nationalists», a majority of Quebecers, POVers and in bad faith, doesn't that make you party to double standards? What is it you do not understand about Wikipedia's definition of nation? Do you think Quebec nationalists who wrote that definition?--Tallard 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys are awfully confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.197.121 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, with qualifier. As per Ramdrake sound arguments. -- Mathieugp 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The facts here speak for themselves. 'Quebec is a nation' is a contentious statement that depends on one's ideological and political point of view. This is a plain fact established by the academic, legal, political, and popular references given here. There are many opposing POV's that are neither marginal nor that speak for and against this proposition. Therefore, it is a question of referencing each POV and clearly identifying the ideological point of view being expressed.--Soulscanner 04:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to mediation... so what of it?--Tallard 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Mediation requires good faith willingness from opposing parties to consider reconsider their own hardline position and be open to the consensus. If they're only committed at the outset in accepting mediation if the process reconfirms the position they already hold, mediation will just be more of the same. This request for comment on mediation infers this mediation is an inquiry on one side's behavior. It's got to have both sides treated evenly. Professor marginalia 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely. Mediation seems indicated here as we have been discussing this topic since the first week of August. We need to have someone referee our resolving whether Quebec or Quebeckers forms a nation, whether Quebec society as a whole (or just a part) forms a nation, the wording of the statement, and its placement, if at all, in this article. CWPappas 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Insisting that Nation have equal footing is NOT a POV

Dear Soulscanner, this one's entirely for you. You state in the mediation subsection that those asking that nation be treated on an equal footing with province are «pushing a POV» and that is proven. You are wrong. Contributers asking for equal footing are stating facts, but those pushing different footing are pushing their POV, but contrary to your opinion, that statement is not verifiable, because that would require a publication regarding our very conversation!!!! Maybe in 5 years...

For your perusal, this is Wikipedia's first definition of Nation <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

• Nation is an ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. A nation extends across generations, and includes the dead as full members. Past events are framed in this context; for example; by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago. More vaguely, nations are assumed to include future generations.
• A nation is not a state, and while traditionally monocultural, it may also be multicultural in its self-definition. The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
• Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, mainly outside the national homeland. A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy. Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims may be based on which nation lived there first. Especially in areas of historical European settlement (1500-1950), the term "First Nations" is used by groups which share an aboriginal culture, and seek official recognition or autonomy.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This very essence of Quebec. According to Wikipedia, Quebec is a Nation. And frankly we don't even really require Harper's statement to state that fact because Wikipedia's own definition of Nation does not require «international approval».--Tallard 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tallard, Soulscanner is not criticizing editors who push for an equal footing of nation and province: Soulscanner said that "'Quebec is a nation' is a contentious statement that depends on one's ideological and political point of view." This means that each editor's opinion on the subject is their point of view and that intellectuals, as well as us editors, cannot come to a consensus. This is true. The points of view that are presented by each editor must be referenced, which most of us have done. Soulscanner is not judging anyone's opinion, nor is he presenting an opinion him/herself. Soulscanner is stating facts, not points of view. Please read carefully. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying «Quebec is a nation» is exactly in line with Wikipedia's definition, it's only contentious to the few who refuse to accept the facts. Unless you wish to rewrite Nation...If you disagree with Wikipedia, then that's a POV--Tallard 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is contentious because there are facts arguing against it. I haven't said that I disagree with Wikipedia; however, as stated below, referencing wiki to wiki is not appropriate. Another fact is that I could rewrite nation to find a loophole so that Quebec is excluded from the status, but that would be inappropriate and against my values. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary of facts

OK, let's try this (follow with your own):

Just the facts

Points for nation on equal footing	Points against nation on equal footing
Nation according to WP nation (Tallard)	...
Nation according to Canada (Tallard)	...
Nation according to Québec (Tallard)	...
Diff admin powers than ROC (Tallard)	...

Just so you know, Wikipedia's definition of a nation is irrelevant, because under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples#Are wikis reliable sources?, Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. This means that even if Wikipedia's Nation article had nothing else written but "Quebec is a nation", and Wikipedia's general editorial society agreed it was the perfect defition, it still would not be a sound argument in order to have that statement added here because as mentioned above, other wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, just about any encyclopedia you'll find will define "nation" the same way WP does, or if it's a dictionary, you'll find several possible meanings which correspond to what the "nation" article in WP says. Wp itself may not be a RS to itself, but any article needs to be based on RS, so we can just present WP's RS on nation and these would have to be considered as valid.--Ramdrake 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So use the reliable sources from the article and not the article itself. You can't assume the sources given in the nation article are reliable just because they are there. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple definitions I found:

The simplest statement that can be made about a nation is that it is a body of people who feel that they are a nation; and it may be that when all the fine spun analysis is concluded, this will be the ultimate statement as well. (Rupert Emerson: From Empire to Nation - The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples, 1960)

All that I can find to say is that a nation exists when a significant number of people in a community consider themselves to form a nation, or behave as if they formed one. It is not necessary that the whole of the population should so feel, or so behave, and it is not possible to lay down dogmatically a minimum percentage of a population which must be so affected. When a significant group holds this belief, it possesses 'national consciousness'. (Hugh Seton-Watson, Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London:* Nations & States - Methuen, London 1977)

I guess that by those definitions, Quebec is indubitably a nation.--Ramdrake 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

By both of those statements, it is uncontested that the Québécois form a nation. Those two statements are not definitions though; they are considerations. Neither statement says "A nation is defined as ... (paraphrased or not)." Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is a definition of nation I pulled straight from the Encarta[1]

1. people in land under single government: a community of people or peoples living in a defined territory and organized under a single government

2. people of same ethnicity: a community of people who share a common ethnic origin, culture, historical tradition, and, frequently, language, whether or not they live together in one territory or have their own government.

Please note that nowhere is the word "sovereign" or "independent" mentioned. In contrast, the same Encarta [2] gives this for nation-state:

independent state: a politically independent country, especially one in which the citizens share the same language, culture, and nationality

Here, the notion of political independence (sovereignty, if you will) is foremost. It is becoming to me obvious that those who might think that saying that "Quebec is a nation" is tantamount to saying it has sovereignty (which it hasn't!) are merely confusing nation and nation-state. And yes, by the very definition of nation above, there are obviously several nations in Canada (in addition, obviously, to the First Nations), but Quebec, to the best of my knowledge is unique among all the potential non-native nations as being the only one sub-population of Canada which has claimed its existence as a nation, not counting of course its identity as par of the Canadian nation-state.--Ramdrake 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your definitions refer to the people themselves, not the region they live in. I'm fairly certain that Quebec is a region, not a people. The Québécois are a people though. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So then we're back to my original proposal: Quebec is the only Canadian province whose people have been declared a nation within Canada

It satisfies both sides of the argument! Province comes before nation in the sentence, and yet we simultaneously give note of Quebec's particular condition... I think it's the only formulation for an intro, unless we separate the articles into Quebec-Province and Quebec-Nation--Tallard 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's also quite acceptable to me, for the record, regardless of the fact that some people in Quebec may not identify with the Quebec(er) nation; after all, there are people in every nation who will not identify with the nation they reside in.--Ramdrake 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's a fair compromise. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if it was clear by my words that this should be the intro line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It definitely should *not* be the very first line of the article, as I personally feel the first line of an article about a province should be a factual statement, rather than a statement about its people. I'd be comfortable with that being somewhere in the first paragraph, myself, but not as the very first line. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be the first sentence, but that it should be in the intro.--Ramdrake 19:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That misreading is most regretful as that was certainly not what we were talking about in this subsection!!! we were discussing how to phrase nation on a equal footing with Province, so my goal was certainly not to rewrite the already existing last intro phrase. I am seriously against any phrasing that relegates nationhood to a «additional item» among others. Nationhood is a «principal item» to a majority of quebecers and if that is not acceptable to the world then Quebec the nation MUST have a separate page on wiki, the arguments must eventually cease and we must agree to disagree.--Tallard 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase myself: I would agree that the sentence may not be the first sentence of the introduction; however, I feel it should nevertheless be in the first paragraph of the intro.--Ramdrake 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I agree 100% with Quebec is the only Canadian province whose people have been declared a nation within Canada, regardless of where it is placed in the intro, as Tallard proposed; now, Tallard, are you saying that it is unacceptable? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ouf, sorry, communications are difficult! :) If we replace the actual second intro line with my proposal, it will not read well as continuation to the previous 2 times we state province, this would make it a third. Grammatically speaking. We're already using most of the same words in 2 contiguous sentences:

• This article is about the Canadian province (bold should be linked)
• Quebec [...]is a province in Canada

a little heavy handed. By deleting the partial phrase is a «...province in Canada», we'd still have the very first «This article is about the Canadian province» and then a short phonetics phrase, then my proposal (or a similar version from someone else). Much less redundancy... into one simple to read sentence... (sorry, I don't always obey this in my own meanderings :O)

Furthermore, now the end of the paragraph backtracks with bla bla on individuals' POVs on the definition of nation, that very first link to the Hansard delves sufficiently into the «defintion of nation» as well as later on in this article itself, there's no need to present excerpts of the parliamentary debate here. The intro should stick to a few basic facts, the debate ought to be left for elsewhere. Ideally, I feel (for all provinces) that the first line should steer away from the whole «is a province of Canada» because it just reads badly. That should be the role of the infobox. This way my proposal (or someone else's equivalent) would indeed be the second phrase, but everything would read easier. :) Cheers--Tallard 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yoooohooooooo, guys and gals, we were not finished debating this last suggestion and I felt we were so close to arriving at some sort of compromise...--Tallard 01:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro Modifications

I think we should write in the intro:

"Quebec is a province and a nation in Canada (...) " . It's shorter, straight forward. Pgsylv 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And the point of view that you have held since this interminable discussion began. Please read the pages and pages of writing above in which other editors have stated their opposition to that statement, and their reasoning, and maybe consider getting involved in seeking consensus rather than sticking to this point. Please. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add WP:SOAP as well as WP:POINT and WP:SPA to consider. Sorry, but I had to. Tomj 19:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that at this point, user Pgsylv has a choice: either he holds to his views unaltered and accepts not to be part of whatever consensus decision happens on this matter, or he accepts to compromise some on his position and then can contribute to building the consensus. I believe the rest has already been said.--Ramdrake 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok so let's start with this: drop " ...although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means. " . Pgsylv 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

On what basis? It is indicative of the debate amongst intellectuals as well as wikipedia editors. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, I find it rather poorly worded. It seems to indicate nobody really knows what it means, when the fact is, it is interpreted differently by different people. If one must, how about "although this recognition remains controversial"; fewer words and we don't get to feel people don't have a clue what this means, when that is patently not true. However, I would personnally much prefer Tallard's suggestion.--Ramdrake 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument from me regarding rewording. My issue was with the word drop. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much opposed to anything that reads "Quebec is a nation" or that all the residents of Quebec form a nation because the "nation" only acts to preserve one segment of Quebec society's interests in certain areas that nationalists seem to feel are key attributes of their nation. Once again, I feel that mention of nationhood and the Quebecois people does not belong in the lead of this article as this is a general article on the territory which addresses history and politics later on. There are other articles where I feel mention of this in the lead is appropriate. Whatever happened to mediation? We seemed to have a pretty good consensus on mediation. CWPappas 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: you object to any phrasing acknowledging that "Quebec is a nation" (or any other similar qualifier), not on the grounds that it may be disputed by some, but rather on the grounds of what you feel the goals of this nation may be? With all due respect, do you realize that this objection implicitly amounts to you recognizing that Quebec is a nation, and that you just don't like what you perceive its goals are?--Ramdrake 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, quite to the contrary. I believe that a group of people exist in Quebec that are a nation but because important aspects of the body of legislation meant to bolster that nation are detrimental to the interests of those Quebeckers who do not self-identify with this nation, not all Quebeckers are seen as being part of the nation. In my opinion, Quebec's various governments have done a great deal to discourage non-Francophones from self-identifying as being part of the nation. The phrase "Quebec is a nation" implies, or may be understood to mean, that Quebec the territory or province is a nation or that all residents within Quebec are part of the nation. Similarly, the phrase "Quebec is the only Canadian province whose people have been declared a nation within Canada" implies that all of Quebec's people are members of the nation. I personally feel that "all of Quebec's people are members of the nation" is not a fact, and have seen that it is disputed by many much better qualified to comment than I am. CWPappas 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear CWpappas, I really don't understand where you're coming from on this one because study after study on health care, education, media/communications have demonstrated that anglo quebecers are the best treated minority anywhere. Anglophones have nothing to complain of. My English speaking gray haired mother is also perfectly happy doing any number of things in English, university, clubs, movies, plays, restaurants, doctors apts, radio, television, newspapers. No she is certainly no separatist and never will be, but she has come to appreciate Québec over the years and certainly does not view herself as experiencing anything detrimental, believe you me, if she did, she'd be ranting... and she now considers herself a Québécois, even though she speaks almost no French. Your POV of mistreatment of minorities is completely off the mark. With regards to First Nations, most were spared the humiliation of residential schools, and with regards to visible minorities, there is practically no racism (comparatively to other geos I've visited on this planet). So if we were to use such a sentence as my proposal (Québec is the only province whose people have been declared a nation) has no «bad connotation» except in your POV. And otherwise, a majority of parliament would not have agreed to it. It's just a plain and simple fact.--Tallard 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, nobody is claiming that Quebec is a nation-state, just a nation. In that sense of "nation", it's primarily the people who form the nation, that has already been established, thus a qualifier may be needed that "the people of Quebec form a nation" to be pefectly clear. Also, the point has been made that not all people within a nation need to self-identify with it (regardless of why they choose not to self-identify) for the nation to exist. You will not find a single nation on Earth whose every resident self-identifies with that nation (remember Sting's "An Englishman in New York"?), as self-identification is a personal choice; so, why make this a criterion for Quebec?--Ramdrake 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• First paragraph: should be 2 lines, phonetics and province/nation line. Backtracking has no place in the intro.
• Second paragraph: This was a tourist advertisement based on the previous license plate logo, that existed long long ago and no one ever says «la belle province» anymore, that is very passé and a little condescending actually...officially considered «cliché»[3]...--Tallard 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I just don't want people up to the barricades saying Quebec isn't a nation because not every single last person in Quebec considers him/herself as part of the nation (a standard to which, I might add no other nation on Earth is held)--Ramdrake 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To comment, the point of my argument is to clarify which Quebec and what type of nation we are using. I find "Quebec is a nation" is an ambiguous statement that can be twisted by separatist points of view. Saying "The people/culture of Quebec form a nation" is something I agree with 100%. It's a matter of words, and I believe there is always a way to word things so that everyone (or a consensus at least ^^) is happy: we just have to be patient and find it. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And on this point, I agree with you that it's appropriate to qualify the statement. However, I have a much bigger problem with CWPappas' argument.--Ramdrake 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tallard, the source you provided is not good enough to show that "la belle province" is *officially* considered a cliché. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I do not presently have access to a large library or newspaper archive, so I'm as yet incapable of finding the proper source for this cliché concept. But I'd suggest interested parties research it on their side as well. That «insufficient» source did not invent the cliché concept, it is a «well known» concept and it's just a matter of finding stronger sources.--Tallard 20:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to First paragraph, line to follow phonetics: I get the feeling we have consensus if not unanimity (pgsylv) on the wording Quebec is the only Canadian province whose people have been declared a nation within Canada(I suggest Hansard reference only, we don't need a bunch of media references to distort things, the Hansard is the actual proper source and it includes the whole «meaning of nation» issue, it doesn't need to be rehashed here). This position was adopted by a very clean majority of Parliament so there are no reasons to place political meanderings and existencial issues in the first paragraph. We need ONE clean statement of fact, and this Hansard fact/reference is not refuted by anyone. That being said, if any of us feel the definition of Quebec is more than what the Parliament has approved, then that is the subject of a distinct wikipedia page. In the same way as any of us feeling that Quebec is less than what Parliamant approved, then let that be a distinct wikipedia page. Is this not being neutral vs POVs from both ends?--Tallard 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen! It makes the clear distinction that prevents anyone from confusing "nation" and "nation-state" which I think is the largest concern here. I don't see that any other concerns here that have been echoed by more than one editor aren't addressed either.--Ramdrake 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent wording. Now, do we agree on it's placement (Last line in first paragraph)? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I'd like to suggest this formulation for the entire first paragraph (citations excluded):

Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk][1]) is a province in Canada, and the only one whose people have been declared a nation within Canada.

Please feel free to comment and/or rewrite as appropriate. I only did this to confirm placement and show how we could build continuity in the text.--Ramdrake 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a single-line intro is a good idea, with the Hansard reference to finish it off. It says everything that needs to be said and sticks to facts.--Tallard 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Any objections?--Ramdrake 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Tomj 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If we all agree so far, should we wait more, or does someone want to do the honors of rewriting the intro accordingly?--Ramdrake 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, we'll see what happens... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ramdrake 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to the changes. We had an overwhelming consensus to go to mediation and this was ignored. What happened?

As I have said before, I object to this statement being in the lead as there are articles which deal more specifically with Quebec's peoples and the national question, but can live with its inclusion in the lead of this article because it is a case of formatting, and there seems to be consensus. I would, however, prefer to see mention of Harper's Motion in the paragraph that begins "The official language of Quebec is French..." because Harper's Motion is too vague and contentious to merit inclusion in the first lead paragraph.

My strongest opposition is to the implication that the Quebec population, in its entirety, is a nation. The basis for legitimacy of this statement is Harper's Motion which talks about the Quebecois people, not Quebeckers. "Quebeckers" refers to all residents of Quebec, whereas there are nuances to the use of the word Quebecois in English that may indicate that Harper's motion was not to be understood to mean "all Quebeckers". Yes, within any nation there are those who do not self-identify but the nation within Quebec sees linguistic and/or ethnic charateristics central to its identity, and that measures have been taken to preserve these attributes to the detriment of other groups. This is more than just individuals failing to self-identify as part of the nation.

What Tallard wrote at 23:26 on October 18 makes sense but the new wording here does not express facts; it concludes that Quebecois means the same thing as Quebeckers when Harper said "...this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." CWPappas 06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Quebec government has enacted some laws to protect its language and culture, doesn't, in my sense take away from the fact that Quebecers form a nation. It is nice of you to admit at least that not everyone within a nation needs to identify with a nation for the nation to exist. Also, please take note that the "new wording" is for all intents and purposes identical to what Tallard wrote. The fundamental characteristic for a nation to exist is a sense of identity, and that sense is usually based on linguistic, cultural, even ethnic characteristics. As I said, that the government took steps to preserve the language and culture of its national identity only makes sense. I don't see that in doing this it restricted in any way the fundamental rights of anyone in Quebec.--Ramdrake 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as far as "ignoring consensus to go to mediation is concerned, there is a saying which goes: "a bad compromise is better than a good war", although, personnally, I find the compromise that was ironed out so far rather a good compromise.--Ramdrake 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd paragraph (so large and reads badly)

Well now that the first paragraph is dealt with, we can move on to other ones. 1. «La belle province» is a cheesy nickname used by very few people. It could indeed be in a nickname subsection but certainly not as one of Quebec's fundamental attributes... Someone previously brought up that I had insufficient proof for this. However I feel the burden of proof was on whomever put the line in there in the first place. It has no business this close to the lead.

2. The bordering people and provinces/states. To say that NB borders Quebec to the East is technically false. Indeed, «most» of NB is «somewhere» East of Quebec, and only a couple of miles actually «border» in an East-West way. Most of the border between NB and Quebec is a North-South border. Technically we should say East of Quebec is Labrador and SALT WATER, to the SE is NB & Maine, and on the South border is USA(NY, VT, NH). We may be able to get skirt this issue by not using the word «borders». I'm from the Gaspésie, 20 743 km² (half the area of Switzerland), too large to be considered a pimple of geography LOL, NB has always been my south border :)--Tallard 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to ask everyone's opinions on each and every subject within the article. If you feel that saying NB is to the East can be said better, go ahead and make the changes. We've had discussion about La Belle Province, and I believe that as a motto/statement of notoriety, it should be mentioned;however, it may not be affectionately known as, so the present format may be reworded. As far as I can tell, the only significant debate was regarding the usage of the word nation. Therefore, make any changes you feel should be done, and if you feel others might not agree, leave a note saying what you have done. If there is a disagreement, it can be changed back again. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec Referendum

Very little reference is maid to the Referendum of 1995. This event had a great deal of impact on the private sector of Quebec and effected the jobs and products produced by the province. It is my opinion that it should be e mentioned in a seperate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.199.117 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the "Quebecois nation" issue.

The initial paragraph needs to be put within proper context as it appears to be written in a manner that would confound most people not in Canada. The Quebecois Nation was proclaimed in a Motion of the House of Commons. The House could equally pass a Motion to salute the King of Tonga on his birthday or a Motion to recognize the 125th anniversary of Yorkton, Saskatchewan. It did not confer upon Quebec any additional rights or alter Quebec's status as a Province of Canada. A "nation" in the English language is usually taken to mean a sovereign state with all the trappings that it entails such as legislative supremacy in all respects, reciprocity from other nations that recognize the inalieable sovereign character, the nationality of its inhabitants, the right to take part in transnational forums, a central bank, armed forces, having diplomats accredited to it and so forth. The proper noun "Quebecois" is without legal meaning outside of Canada, and arguably within Canada apart from being understood to mean a resident of the Canadian Province of Quebec. Daza ra (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the issue was that the "Quebecois" were declared a "nation", just like the Natives form a "nation". But the Natives also have treaties with the federal government that allow them extras (which was in exchange for the land), whereas the Quebecois do not. The people form a nation within Canada. To change the official relationship between Canada and Quebec, they would need to alter the Constitution, and unless I missed a Referendum or an important vote by every province, the Constitution has not been changed. It is basically business as usual, plus the Quebecois are unique (which we all knew before, but now it's "official"). I think that the opening paragraph distinguishes this. I've linked to nation to hopefully help people (honestly, people in and out of Canada are confused by the issue). As nation says: Members of a "nation" share a common identity", which is what we've basically said about Quebec. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User Daza ra, please see Archives 5 and 6 where we held a lenghty discussion on the subject. Tomj (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, hoping this may help, I would suggest Daza Ra compare the definitions of nation and nation-state. I believe therein lies the confusion, and it's quite obvious here that Quebecers represent the first, but not the second of these two terms, unless I slept through another referendum.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"... and the only one whose people have been declared a nation..." It's not quite clear how people can be declared a nation... Grade F to the people who revised and/or accepted the revision. Cristo39 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

From Nation in Wikipedia: A nation is a form of cultural or social community. There are many sources that define nation similarily. "Nation" is a term which applies to a group of people, first and foremost. Did you by any chance have nation-state in mind?--Ramdrake (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nation is rarely used in English in the same sense as in French. The United Nations, for instance, is an organization of only nation-states. The word nation carries the connotation of a political state having sovereignty over its territory. While the definition of nation in this debate has been expanded by Harper's declaration, it's not really native to the sense of the word in the English language. Just ask an American, like me.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a (1): nationality 5a (2): a politically organized nationality (3): a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire — Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)> b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

2, archaic : group, aggregation

3: a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

NOTE THE ARCHAIC REFERENCE TO WHAT IS THE SAME SENSE IN FRENCH.

G. Csikos, 25 November 2007

You're going to have to make your point a little more obvious to me, G Csikos, because I don't understand what you're trying to say. We have endeavored to express that the term nation used in the motion applied to the people, and had no links to sovereignty in the province. Are you saying that we haven't sufficiently expressed the difference between nation and nation-state? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just supporting Cristo39 in his valid point as to whether a group of people can be declared a nation by someone else. G. Csikos, 26 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.88.199 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I definitely didn't get that from what you said. The argument came up regarding whether or not "outsiders" can declare a group a nation, and some editors (who I would believe associate themselves with the Quebecois nation) argued that external acknowledgment is unnecessary. Quebecers have called themselves a socio-cultural nation for years. At the same time though, perhaps declare is not the right word to use in the sentence. I'm certain there is an alternative. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest recognize as a possible alternative?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of recognize- England didn't suddenly proclaim Québec a nation as some writers/editors would like it to be. Excellent suggestion! Monsieurdl (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I support as well. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 06:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Recognize is a better word since nations exist on their own, not to mention it was the word used in the actual motion in Parliament. The Québécois form a coherent community with a defined government and territory.

I think saying it's nation being used in the "sociological" sense is silly since that sense doesn't exist in English (see above). The regular definition of a nation being a community with a government and territory is fine. G. Csikos, 26 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.200 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps being an American, you haven't had the experience of dealing with Quebec nationalism and sovereignty issues. It is absolutely necessary to define what form of nation the people of Quebec compose because any ambiguity can be twisted into referring to Quebec as a nation-state. I accept your definition of nation from Merriam-Webster, and I would argue that the Quebecois nation is really in the second definition, what you have highlighted as archaic. Likewise, the Wikipedia definition fits, describing the people as forming a social and cultural nation. What edition of Merriam Webster did you use, by the way? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in Montreal for six years now Andrew. My point about being an American is that I grew up in a unilingual English-speaking environment so I don't have problems with faux amis (words that sound the same in two languages but are really different in meaning). That was the latest version of Merriam-Webster's dictionary at m-w.com. G. Csikos, 27 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.200 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean any insult when I commented on your being American, just to clarify the situation. My argument was that both the definition you provided and the definition here discuss a sociological sense, since a group or aggregation is a social context. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it all the people of Quebec or just the francophone Quebecers? Clarify please. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully, I believe it is just francophone Quebeckers as they are the distinct community in question that has a government governing a defined territory, and are hence a nation. English-speaking Quebeckers self-identify with Canada more than Quebec.

Just for background, I don't subscribe to the two-nation view of Canada's origins legally (in that Quebec has more powers than the other provinces, like a constitutional veto, since it represents the French-Canadian (Québécois) nation) but I do politically (as in Quebec should have more powers for the same reasons). G. Csikos, 13 December 2007.

GoodDay, there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to your question. When the Harper government made their declaration, they said that "...the Quebecois form a nation..." and dodged clarifying whether Quebecois meant "all Quebeckers" to reporters who asked your very question immediately afterwards.

In a province where, by law, the majority must send their children to schools to be instructed in their mother tongue; where immigrants cannot choose which language schools their children attend, and children of parents from the U.S., U.K., Australia, Jamaica, or any other English-speaking country (except Canada), cannot send their children to one of Quebec's publically-funded English schools, there certainly is the appearence of a stratified society. You can be fined for having unilingual commercial signs in a language other than French. There are even plans afoot to prevent Quebeckers who fail to meet some standard of French-language proficiency from running and even voting in elections!

I have not heard any outcry from Quebec's majority critical of these policies...have you?

So, if the Quebecois Nation is substantially defined, and self-identify, by virtue of language and/or linguistic roots, how can members of the cultural communities be considered full members of the nation?

To address G. Csikos' response to your question, I don't believe that English-speaking Quebeckers self-identify more with Canada than they do with Quebec. I think that it is not a matter of choice for them. I lived in Montreal for 45 years and it wasn't a matter of "either/or" for me. I was a Canadian, Quebec was my province, Montreal my city, and TMR my hometown. It would be silly to ask an Ontarian to choose whether he/she self-identifies more with his/her province or country. The fact that this even comes up in Quebec is evidence of a jingoistic political climate where people are lead to believe that Canada, multi-culturalism, and multilingualism are threats to their way of life and that the best defense is to build walls. It produces an "us against them" mindset that rallies the population behind ideas like separation and suppression of minority rights in the name of preservation of cultural identity. CWPappas (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are partly right, CWPappas. There is indeed a politicizing in Quebec of the issues at hand, and it does go too far a lot of times, but you must remember that Quebecois are a proud people- heritage is everything. The French language ties Quebecois together, and traditions are supremely important. Those who are not will never understand because they cannot relate to the heritage- they only see the language and the flag and Parti Quebecois and a referendum. It does not prevent Quebec from being a recognized nation, however. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed Quebecois was 'Quebec francophones', which is why the opening sentence caught my eye. I didn't think Quebecois nation ment the entire provincial population. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree CWPappas. For English-speaking Canadians, including Anglophones in Quebec, Canada is their "nation" while their province of residence is a secondary attachment (much like in the US with states instead of provinces). This ranking of affiliation is the opposite for most French-speaking Quebeckers: Quebec is their "nation" and Canada is just what's on the money and passports. Separatism aside, most Québécois are much more passionate about Quebec than they are about Canada and understandably so since it is where they feel most in control.

In this context the word Québécois in the Commons motion really must be interpreted as being French-speaking Quebeckers who would have been called French-Canadians a half century ago. It was just politically expedient to avoid explaining this to the media and remain ambiguous in intent. G. Csikos, 13 December 2007.

I've corrected the opening sentence, so that it shows who's the Quebecois nation. It's the Francophone Quebecers. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree with this correction, as when asked to clarify who was included in the Quebecois nation, Harper was very specific that it was those who identified themselves as such. One doesn't need to be born in the Province of Quebec nor to have French as a first language to identify as a Quebecois (as can be seen if any one of you has been following the Bouchard-Taylor commission?). Furthermore, yes, it was recognized as such by the Canadian House of Commons, but it was earlier (2003, I believe) proclaimed by the Quebec National Assembly, thus there is no need for this overspecification or this restriction that's arbitrarily imposed on membership. The Quebecois nation is not limited to just French Canadians.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess my whole point is that saying that the recognition only applies to francophone Quebecers is either original research if it isn't supported by references, or favouring one specific POV if you side with one set of references as this interpretation is far from being unanimous (I don't even think it is predominant).--Ramdrake (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not the entire provincial population that's a nation. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The way Harper put it, it's the personal choice of every single resident, period. No one is de facto excluded. So, if every single resident wants to identify him or herself as a Quebecois, yest the whole population is potentally included. Why do you thnk anyone would be excluded who doesn't want to be?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the nation is the Francophone Quebecers. However, since I've no source to back that claim, I won't revert. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; when you have a reliable source that says that the motion was only intended to recognize francophone Quebecers, then we can change the text. However, this would need to be something directly from governmental sources, not just from some political analyst on the scene. However, I personnally don't see how someone either not born in Quebec or not having French as ther first language could be prevented from identifying as part of the Quebecois nation (assuming they live in Quebec, if nothing else) if they so wish. As far as I know, that's the way it's been with every single nation on earth: you can be born to it, or you can adopt it. Let's be clear that I agree that francophone Quebecers are at the core of the nation; that doesn't prevent anyone else from adopting the Quebecois nationality if they so desire, and thereby also becoming "Quebecois" in the process.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, nation goes beyond borders (in this case Quebec's borders). GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there was no specific limit placed that stated only Francophone Quebecers where to be deemed part of the "Quebecois nation." However, was there anything that restricted the Quebecois nation to just Quebec? To my mind, Harper's motion spoke about a people as opposed to geography (similar in notion to the King of the Belgians as opposed to the King of Belgium). Therefore, one can be part of the "Quebecois nation" outside of Quebec, while the text here seems to imply otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, the Quebecois nation. They do indeed live outside of Quebec aswell as inside. Thus Quebec isn't the only province to have this nation within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. My interpretation is that Quebecois form a nation under the auspices of the Quebec province- you are confusing the idea of a named group versus an actual nation. If I pointed out there is a "Red Sox Nation", this doesn't mean the Boston Red Sox form an actual nation within New England- that would be silly. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And the current text is, I assume, your interpretation. Where are the cites, then, to support the assertion that the "Quebecois nation" is one formed of those who personally define themselves to be, but ceases at the borders of the province? --G2bambino (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the traditional sense, a "nation" defines a people, not a geographic region. Since this article is about Quebec in the broader sense (its territory, its people, its history, etc.), it is correct to include in the article that this notable fact (recognition) has happened. Now, the wordng the only province exists because no other provincially-based people (with the collective exception of the First Nations) have been recognized as such, neither the Ontarians, the British Columbians, or whatever. Outside of the First Nations, possibly the closest you'll come to another nation within Canada are the Acadians, and these aren't specifically associated with a single province, but rather to a defined region (the Maritime Provinces) that econpasses several provinces.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with you in part; but, the present wording states that all the people of Quebec are recognized as a nation, not just those who personally identify themselves as Quebecois. Perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded so as to say Quebec is the only province with a segment of the population who have been recognised as a nation within a united Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is this, and only this the very same can be said of any nation on Earth; would that prompt you to put a qualifier in every single statement of nationhood in every article on Wikipedia? I would think reasonably not. There will always be residents in every nation on Earth who do not identify with the nation in which they reside, for whatever reason (remember the song: An Englishman in New York by Sting?) In other words, Quebec's people can be a nation, and the province be the nation's homeland withiut the needs for every Quebecer to identify as a Quebecois, or for every single Quebecois to live within the borders of the province.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As "nation" is a term that's open to interpretation, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It is clear here that: 1) Quebec - the province - was not recognised by the HoC as a nation; 2) Quebecers - the population of the province of Quebec - were not recognised by the HoC as a nation. So, those two facts already show the previous wording of the sentence to be misleading. The reality is, something called "the Quebecois" was defined as a nation. We can only say that "the Quebecois" are a certain population of people, based in Quebec, who define themselves as such; the status of "Quebecois" has never been conferred on individuals from any governmental body.

The wording of Harper's motion in the HoC was purposefully vague; we should not now go about setting our own parameters on the decision reached by parliamentarians. --G2bambino (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying there's no members of the Quebecois nation living in the other provinces or territories? GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"In other words, if you recognize that the Québécois form a nation, you have to vote yes in a referendum on separation. The attempt by the leader of the Bloc to persuade Quebecers of good faith to support separation despite themselves brings to mind what his mentor, Jacques Parizeau, said about lobster traps. Quebecers are not taken in by these clumsy tactics." -Stephen Harper, November 2006

You cannot vote on a referendum of separation if you are outside of the borders of the province of Quebec. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the PM adopts my interpretation of his words. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To User:GoodDay: I'm saying that it's irrelevant. Does the fact that there are (insert natinality here) people living outside of (insert national territory here here) detract from the fact that it's a nation? (whether sovereign or non-sovereign isn't relevant here either). Every nation has nationals living outside its territory, and non-nationals living within its territory, and that doesn't detract from their being a nation, and the territory being considered as that nation's homeland, whether sovereign or not.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have a problem with making this geographic. Sorry guys. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS- segement of the population, now that's more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not more accurate. Membership in the nation was never meant to be restrictive; if you want the article to say that there are restrictions, please bring a reliable source that defines the restriction(s). Otherwise, you're putting conditions on the existence of the nation which aren't put on other nations. Whether you have problems with this is irrelevant; whether you can supply reliable sources that back up your position is the relevant point.

--Ramdrake (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying that a segment of the populaton consitutes a nation means that some are excluded. Can you find reliable sources that say who's excluded and on what grounds? If you can, we'll change it.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some are excluded: those who don't define themselves as "Quebecois." If you have a source that states the entire population of the province of Quebec has been defined as the "Quebecois nation," then please bring it forward. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois is simply the French word for Quebecer, and inferring that its use in English means that it is a subest of Quebecers rather than the category being open to whoever wants to identify as such is original research unless you can back it up with reliable sources. And the fact that the word isn't identical to Quebecer cannot be taken in and of itself as proof that it has a different meaning: cerulean and blue both mean blue.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. If you read the motion, and even the Hansard transcripts of ensuing debate, the term "les Québécois" is used quite apart from "the people of Quebec." As was already pointed out above: "When the Harper government made their declaration, they said that "...the Quebecois form a nation..." and dodged clarifying whether Quebecois meant "all Quebeckers" to reporters who asked [the] very question immediately afterwards." So, inferring that Harper meant the population of Quebec when he said "les Québécois" is equally original research, unless it can be backed up by sources, as I already asked you for. --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

By living outside Quebec, one's not a nation member? Isn't that restrictive? GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Céline Dion lives outside of the borders of Quebec; but I very much think she defines herself as a Quebecoise nevertheless.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So there are Quebecois nation members living in the other Canadian provinces? If so, Quebec isn't the only province to have this distinction. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But to the Quebecois nation members living outside of Quebec, Québec (the province) is their homeland, not whatever territory they happen to reside in. Ontario (to name one), that I'm aware, isn't the region Quebecers call their homeland. There are French people living in many countries outside of France; does that mean that France s comprised of all these other countries? I'd hope not!--Ramdrake (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:If a person decides to leave Quebec and live in another province (say Ontario), is this person (who's now an Ontarian) still a 'Quebecois nation member' if he/she chooses that identity? GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There lay the big question: Did the Harper government describe the 'Province of Quebec' as a nation within Canada? Can anybody fully interpet what the resolution says? Was the resolution deliberatly vague? Perhaps the nation thing should be removed from the lead, as it's open to interpetation. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the crux of the matter. The motion most certainly did not define the "Province of Quebec," or even specifically "the people of Quebec" as a nation. It was "les Québécois," without clarification as to what "les Québécois" means.

I too was tempted to remove the sentence from the lead; I almost did, but thought it was worth while to explore other alternatives here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, not everyone living in Quebec needs to identify with the Quebecois nation for the nation to exist. And I don't think it is reasonable to doubt that indeed Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois. If we were talking about any other nationality, would you raise the same issues? Would you doubt that indeed France is the homeland of the French, even though not everybody in France self-defines as French, and even though some French people live abroad? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think we're testing this issue much further than we would if we were speaking about any other nationality.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you're still operating on the assumption that by "les Québécois" Harper meant "the population of Quebec." There is, so far, no proof of this. Your comparisons to France are non-applicable; France is a country, Quebec is not. --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that, in the absence of definite proof one way or another, the appropriate logical assumption is that "Québécois" means what it's supposed to mean in its original language, which isn't a leap of faith. You can't assume by default that Harper did mean anything else than the people of Quebec. And if you dislike my analogy with the French, here's another one about a non-sovereign people: Would you doubt that indeed Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, even though not everybody living in Flanders self-defines as Flemish, and even though some Flemish people live abroad?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions don't work; they're original research, and unverified OR at that. If we can't assume a default one way - and I agree we can't, or, shouldn't - then there should be no assumed default the other. Thus, if the sentence is not to be removed all-together, then it should be reworded. I think your Flemish example is more appropriate, and if you want the sentence to say "Quebec is the only province that is the homeland of a people recognized as a nation by the House of Commons," then I'd agree to it. --G2bambino (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personnally think it's clunky, but if it's the only way to keepit there, I'll settle for that compromise. May I suggest, however, that we give it a few days for other people to chime in, maybe even bring other sugegstions?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why I feel the 'Quebecois nation' should be removed from the opening (and put somewhere else in the article). It invites assumptions. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were several discussions preceding this one, and the consensus was that the fact was significant and notable enough to be in the introduction of the article. No other provincial people in Canada have been recognized as such, and until someone finds me a reliable source that says otherwise, I maintain that logic should dictate that Quebecois==Quebecer.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When are you gonna show us a source that backs your claim? GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right after you show me a source that says they have different meanings. Seriously, any French-English dictionary will show you.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since neither of us can provide a source, the sentence should be moved to another part of the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. I've provided you with a source, (actually a whole class of sources) that says Quebecois means Quebecer, just in another language. So far, it's the only tangible evidence either way, and it's a fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Quebcois being the french version of Quebecer (which it is), though. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a reference: [4]:

A native or inhabitant of Quebec, especially a French-speaking one. Thus, it is defined that "Quebecois" means someone either born or living in Quebec, especially a French-speaking one (especially since they constitute by and far the majority), but it doesn't say anything about the definition excluding anyone.

Also, please note that it also offers this alternative definition:

Que·bec·er -noun a native or inhabitant of Quebec, esp. one who is from the city of Quebec and whose native language is French.

and

Québecois or Quebecois -noun A native or inhabitant of Quebec, especially a French-speaking one. So, here you have reliable sources that say that there is basically no difference between the definitions of either word, except perhaps that "Quebecer" would be more appropriate than "Quebecois" to designate the inhabitants of Quebec City proper, which is totally outisde the purview of this debate.

I rest my case.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The term used wasn't "Quebecois"; it was "les Québécois," and Harper specifically refused to answer questions about whether this term "the Québécois" means the entire population of Quebec or not. Dictionary definitions aside, we just don't know what he meant by the words he used; and I suspect it was composed the way it was for just that reason.

If my above proposal is acceptable, then let's insert it; clunkiness can hopefully be smoothed out. --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Further: its very interesting to note that, in the Hansard transcripts, the term "les Québécois" is not translated into English, as is common for all other French spoken in the House (for the English version of Hansard, of course). --G2bambino (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Hansard transcripts say: That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, not "les Québécois".--Ramdrake (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The version of Hansard used for a reference in this article doesn't; it clearly says "les Québécois." Regardless, the word "Québécois" isn't translated into "Quebecer." --G2bambino (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read above, you'll find that reliable sources (dictionary.com) say they mean the same thing. I included the link and my findings above.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I read what you posted, but it is irrelevant. "Les Québécois," as used in this motion, has never been clarified as being the people of Quebec; Harper pointedly refused to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the current version is based on an assumption/interpritation of the resolution meaning. This isn't acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I say please let's wait a few days for other editors to chime in, as the three of us here today isn't nearly as large a consensus as the one that hammered out the previous version (about ten editors or so).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about having this symbolic & vague resolution mentioned in the opening; but I'll wait. Ya gotta hand it to Harper, this resolution certainly isn't clear. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

After four days, it doesn't seem as though anyone else wants to weigh in on this matter. I'm going to insert the proposal I made above, that seemed to be met with some acceptance. --G2bambino (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been inactive for a while, so I missed the discussion. The proposal was the addition of "the homeland of," correct? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right; as the sentence reads now. --G2bambino (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, just wanted to be certain. For the record, I half-heartedly agree with this change: the motion is about the people and this article is about the province. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

Here we go again. The Harper government did not draft the Quebecois Nationhood Motion over a quick power breakfast the morning of the announcement...it was a carefully crafted piece of purposely ambiguous political gibberism meant to be interpreted to mean any number of things. Why else would Harper and his boys use the French word "Quebecois" in the English version when this French word is open to interpretation in English and the English word "Quebecker(s)" is all-inclusive? Then, to my knowledge, during the Q&A period following the announcement all of Harper's entourage were equally vague when asked to clarify whether the motion meant that all Quebeckers were recognized as being part of the Quebecois Nation. Certainly the choice of a word in a language another than the language in which the statement to the press was given is significant. In Quebec, the primacy of the French language and culture are central to this nation's identity, aren't they? Self-identification in the Quebecois nationality must involve more than simple desire, it involves commitment to the primacy of the French language and Quebec culture, doesn't it? Aren't the restrictions on access to English schools, the language of commercial sign laws, and toponymy policies in place to preserve this national identity? Could a person that self-identifies as a member of the Quebecois nation but doesn't speak a lick of French, believes in the absolute equality of all cultural groups, and had a freedom-of-choice position on access to English schools be considered a true and full member of this nation?

Because Harper's Motion refers to "the Quebecois", i.e. people, and this article is about the province, I feel that mention of the Quebecois Nation should not be in the lead. If it is to remain in the lead, I would prefer something to the effect of "...is a province in Canada, and the only province that is the homeland of the nation of the Quebecois people, as recognized by the House of Commons." with the word "Quebecois" linking to the WP Quebecois article or the words "nation of the Quebecois people" linking to the WP Quebec nationalism article or a brand-new article where the vaguaries and ambiguities of the Harper Motion can be presented to the readers at length an in all its gruesome, but balanced, detail.

In the middle of October we had a unanimous consensus to bring in an administrator to mediate the phrasing and placement of the Harper Motion but edits were pushed through without mediation. If we are going to open up this can of worms again, I vote to bring in an impartial mediator. CWPappas (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CWPappas, I would appreciate your not conflating the language laws (and your sentiments towards them) with the issue of the Quebec nation. If I were to move to Port Coquitlam, BC, and complained about the fact that I can't send my children (if I had any) to French school, what would you say? Of course, BC doesn't have a regulation about this, but the mere fact that it has hardly any French-language schools drives the same results: assimilation into the language of the majority, which is something that is considered normal pretty anywhere else (ever heard of the American melting pot? Please also be aware that those language laws apply equally to every one, so your insinuation that somehow it creates some sort of second-class citizenry doesn't hold too well. Again, you are free, as is everybody else living in Quebec or who was born there, to consider yourself -or not- a "Quebecois". Nobody denies you the right, either way. Now, the fact remains that we can say that the people of Quebec in general form a nation, without the need for every single individual to define him- or herself as a Quebecois (they all have that choice), but you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that anybody who wants to be included in the definition is forcibly excluded, thus potentially everybody who's a Quebecer can claim to be a Quebecois if they so wish.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well, bring in an impartial mediator. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd agree with mediation too.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the dispute now, though? Whether or not to even include mention of the Québécois nation issue in the lead? --G2bambino (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like mediation so that we can have a sentence that everyone agrees with and which could have some sort of backing rather than being questioned all over again every time a new editor drops by the article. This last round is the 'third such unofficial mediation I've sat through, and I'd like some sort of stability to this part of the intro, while keeping there what I think is a very important fact about Quebec and its people.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much of a disagreement over the current sentence; I have no objections to any tweaking, as was alluded to above. The only issue I could see right now is that which I just mentioned: whether or not to actually mention the nation of people in the lead of an article on the province. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps removing the mentioning of the resolution will work, since it's already (properly) mentioned at Quebecois. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also mentioned further on in this very article. --G2bambino (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why why I think I'd like mediation over this is that while you personnally may be swayed to agree that it is indeed important enough to make it in the intro, I don't want to have to repeat this exercize again every month as a new editor comes in. Being able to say that we went through mediation to forge (whatever) compromise is needed would, in my mind, give more weight to the result in case it gets questioned. And personnally, I believe it very much belongs in the intro. There are several precedents, such as with the Scotland article.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or not. My reworking of it was merely to put forward the proper information if the sentence was to remain.

I wonder, though: will mediators involve themselves if there's no conflict to mediate? --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, perhaps we should add Leafs Nation to the lead of Ontario, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And Don Cherry as its Premier? ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My point in bringing together these two issues is that if the Quebec governments over the years, and the laws they have created, are instruments of the people of Quebec and, presumably, of the Quebec Nation and if these laws remove freedom to choose English as the language of instruction for one's children because it is at odds with their notion of the common good, then what does this say about the anglo and allo communities' places within the Quebec Nation? What differentiates the Quebec Nation from the rest of the Canadian population? What defines it?

You are right, the francisation laws apply equally to everyone, as would a law that states everyone must hit people with blonde hair in the head with a stick. Blondes would spent a lot of time wearing hats (or helmets), but bare-headed brunettes would walk away unscathed. The brunettes might not complain about such an egalitarian law, but the blondes might. Would the brunettes fully accept blondes into their ranks if they didn't wear hats or dye their hair, just for who they were? Are the brunettes setting things up so that the blondes just give up and move to Ontario where hats don't come with a bottle of aspirin? Would blondes who self-identify with the brunettes still get hit in the head? Would all the blondes moving to Ontario end up being detrimental to the hat and stick industries?

Levity aside for a moment, the situation is not the same in Montreal and Port Coquitlam. In Montreal, English school boards exist right now and people are not being admitted because laws are being enforced, not because it is not possible to accommodate them. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the early 80s when at the end of the school year the newsreaders would list the English school closures and the English schools that were being turned over to the French sector. People did not suddenly begin to want to send their kids to the French schools—laws were forcing families to send their children into the French schools to produce a more desirable demographic a generation down the road. Why not let Quebec residents who are non-Canadian anglophones and allophones be maitres chez eux? Let the people decide. My family has about 200 years history in Quebec and it really hurts to see my community is being legislated out of existence, and The Nation has no problem with it. The anglo community's existence relied on immigrants (from English and non-English speaking countries) entering the community via the school system. You combine this with efforts to have just one language visible on commercial signs, toponomy policies, etc. and it looks like there is a concerted effort to mould Quebec into a certain social form.

Just as I am for freedom of choice in Quebec, I am certainly for French schools elsewhere in Canada. Not because one meets some qualification, but just because you want it. If there was a francophone community large enough to support a French language school elsewhere in Canada, are they prevented from doing it?

Look, don't get me wrong, Ramdrake. I love Quebec. I live in Ontario now and my wife and I would move back to Quebec at the drop of a hat (no reference to the "Blondes & Sticks Paragraph" to be inferred!)... even anglos are a different animal in Quebec than they are elsewhere (maritimers are different too, as are Torontonian, Niagarans, prairie people, westcoasters, etc). My argument with the phrasing of the Quebec Nationhood blurb is that it is not specific enough and that there is some debate over who the Quebecois are, as stated in my previous rant. "The Quebecois" are not even mentionned in the lead, or who they are. Just whose homeland is Quebec? Let's include the words "The Quebecois" and link them to the WP Quebecois article where people can sort things out for themselves.

I would prefer not going to mediation but we have been arguing since the summer over the tweaking of that one phrase.

Also, I support Don Cherry for Premier with Ron MacLean as first lady or Speaker of the National Assembly. I promise I won't complain either way...I just want to see Ron in there somewhere. CWPappas (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron can be Governor General; he does currently work for the CBC, after all. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK you guys, let's end this comedy break (which I started); now, what's CWPappas complaining about? GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm complaining about this constant bickering over the phrasing and placement of mention of the Harper Motion and the definition of the Quebecois Nation in this article. We've been debating these issues since at least August and in the first half of October we had a consensus to bring in a mediator but then changes were made without mediation. This resulted in relative calm (and I remained relatively silent) but now discussion has started up again. I would prefer ironing this out by ourselves but, as Ramdrake stated in both of his entries on December 19, I don't want to have to argue these things forever. Failing a mutually-agreed upon solution by the editors (where serious opposition is not swept under the consensus rug), I'd much prefer to have someone come in, give us a deadline to present our arguements, and then decide on how the facts are presented in the article. CWPappas (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go for anything that'll settle things. IMHO though, this 'resolution' should be removed from this article, since it's placed at Quebecois nation motion. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a phrase, prefererably in the Quebec as a Nation section of the article, that resembles the following...

On Monday, November 27, 2006 the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada approved The Québécois Nation Motion, a Parliamentary motion tabled by Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, that read "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

Please note that this phrasing is true to the wording of the original motion and links to WP pages that explain The Motion, the Quebecois, and the general concept of nationhood in greater detail. I don't feel that The Motion merits mention in the lead because it accords no special legal status or rights to the Quebecois. CWPappas (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be removed from the lead. It's not a constitutional amendment & it's also vague (what's the Quebecois? is it limited to Quebec?). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree that it should be removed from the lead. The equivalent sentence is in the lead for many other-language versions of the article (among others, if I remember correctly, French, Spanish, Italian and German) The motion doesn't need to change any law to have societal importance, and it does have a lot of importance to Quebecers.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It has a lot of importance to Quebecers? How can you proove this? Which Quebecers - all of them? If so can you proove that aswell? GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking from personal experience, and no, I haven't conducted any polls myself. Also, I would appreciate if you could avoid this "which Quebecers - all of them?" line of questioning, as it is only divisive, and not very helpful. Conversely, I'd like to ask your sources for saying that it is in fact "not important"? For my part, I would say that the fact that it is in the intro for this article in many foreign-language versions of Wikipedia (among them many of the more important languages in existence) would vouch for the fact of its importance. Please take note that all these versions incorporated this fact in the lead before it was introduced to the English-language Wikipedia article.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, there may never be an agreement on this topic. Also, the resolution has an underlying 'seperatism' stigma to it (even though all editors involved are not seperatist). I'll let others figure this out, good luck folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny part is, to a lot of Quebecers, this recognition is possibly the best move the Canadian government has done in years to counter separatism.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it there's to be no mediation? --G2bambino (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the Quebecois Nation motion has been removed from the lead (see discussion below). GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognised by whom?

I have to raise another issue (sorry): the wording of the text implies that there has been some kind of official national status conferred on the Quebecois, when this is not the case. There was a motion in the House of Commons, and it was agreed upon by the majority of members, but this does not create any law or even real national status for the Quebecois. Even declaring "themselves" (whomever "they" may be) does nothing to create anything officially recognised. So, though what I've since done may not be the ideal solution, the sentence had best somehow make this clear. --G2bambino (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this brings up a good point. Even though some may use "nation" as in "country", Quebec is not recognized as independent by any country in the world. Even Canada says that the Quebeois form a nation (in the social form) within a united Canada. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Quebec isn't recognised as independent; but nor is it recognised as a nation by "Canada." The House of Commons, and perhaps the National Assembly of Quebec - some years ago - define "les Quebecois" as a "nation." --G2bambino (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the introduction. It doesn't say that "Quebec is recognized as a nation"; it says the "people of Quebec are recognized as a nation". There is a major distinction here. The only question remaining is whether "Quebecois" means the people of Québec. I say that's a safe enough assumption.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't allow assumptions. Does the resolution cover all Quebecers (not just Francophone Quebecers), is open to debate. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we do something productive then? How about we ask a lawyer, or maybe a professor in constitutional studies, or maybe email Harper and ask him. We don't get to interpret legislation, that is the courts job. Nor can we "assume" was Harper's motivation was behind the bill (for all we know, it was so the government presented it and not the Bloc, who were coming out with their own bill like the next day). The issue is open to debate, but definitive answers can only be given by people who have the right qualifications (a judge, lawyer, professor, Harper). Besides partisan politics and Quebecers ego, this legislation has absolutely no effect on anything. We mine as well debate how Canadian the Dali Llama is now that he has honourary citizenship. We are collectively wasting our time here. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't even legislation. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The motion doesn't have any legal effect, just a political one. A nation or country doesn't have to be sovereign (for instance, the UK is made up of four constituent nations) or to have any special powers by virtue of its mere existence. A motion that the Québécois are a nation does not and cannot confer on Quebec any sort of legal benefit. G. Csikos, 15 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.84.227 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understand the purpose of this discussion. The motion is purely symbolic, as stated somewhere in the archives, and it does not confer any national benefits. Although it is ambiguous as to who is included, Ramdrake has provided some intelligent points on who is included in a nation, regardless of territory. Since that fact is backed by the wording of the motion (the people descriptive), what is the issue here? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion pertains to a previous incarnation of the sentence in question. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Montreal

I've noticed several areas in the article calling Montreal the francophone capital of North America, and the cultural capital of Quebec. I would argue against that, but I cannot back up my argument with anything other than discussion with my Quebecois friends. I would call Montreal a multicultural centre (of Quebec or Canada), but Quebec City is the true cultural capital of Quebec (to Quebecois at least, I'm not certain how English Quebecers feel). It's somewhat a rant, but that's the information I get from discussion. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 06:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no slight intended to my friends in Quebec City, but Montreal is a larger cultural capital than the "Old Capital". Yes, Montreal is a multicultural centre, but it remains very much a francophone city, and a cultural pole for Quebec, Canada and indeed all of North America (not saying it is the cultural pole of North America, just one of them). So, while Quebec may indeed be more typical of the Quebecois culture specifically, I'd say that doesn't prevent Montreal from being the francophone capital of Norht America. This from a French-speaking Quebecois, but hey, that's just my opinion. Or, laet me make an analogy: Paris is today very much a cosmopolitan city, but would you say that because of it, it's not the francophone capital of Europe? I'd say that wouldn't make much sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that a majority of Quebecois would tell you that Quebec City is indeed the francophone capital of Quebec. Larger does not necessarily mean better or stronger, and you can say that Montreal is the most diverse city in Quebec, and the largest, but as far as the cultural and linguistic capital, Quebec City shall never lose that distinction. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Never say never, but your point is well taken. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well let me preface it- it will never lose it unless Quebec is overrun by a horde of invaders, is swept under by a natural disaster, or ceases to exist. :) Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that 'the Francophone Capital of North America' is a title that would imply Montreal's centrality to *all* the francophone peoples of the continent: the Cajuns, Metis, Acadiens, etc. While Montreal may be an important, central hub in Quebec its influence as a linguistic/cultural capital does not reach so far as to be central to the other peoples mentioned.

Flag

The following line seems misleading: "The "Fleurdelisé" has seen many transformations since it first arrived on the shores of the Gaspésie in 1534 with Jacques Cartier." The "Fleurdelisé is today's flag, is it not? I don't know what Jacques Cartier brought with him in 1534, but it certainly was not the Fleurdelisé. If it were anything close, I would guess it was the French Royal Standard which has fleur-de-lis on it; still, the connection to today's flag is far removed from that. AnthroGael (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the wording problem. I sure hope everyone finds this correct:

"The fleur-de-lis, the ancient symbol of the French monarchy, first arrived on the shores of the Gaspésie in 1534 with Jacques Cartier on his first voyage."

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was so good I put it as the first line! (That, and chronologically it seemed to make more sense to put it there.) AnthroGael (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quebec Fertility

In the demographics section it states that Quebec has among Canada's lowest fertility rates at 1.62 children. How is that true? Canada's fertility rate as a whole is 1.5 children per woman, higher than Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, new Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, and the Yukon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see a reference, thus I went to Statcan and found a table for 2005 information. That, I believe, is the latest available year for fertility rates. The figures there list Quebec at 1.52, not 1.62. As such, Quebec is slightly lower than the Canadian national average, which is 1.54. Nevertheless, you are correct to point out that it is still higher than rates for most other jurisdictions in Canada, although you incorrectly included Manitoba which, along with the other prairie provinces, has a substantially higher rate.

I have thus made the necessary changes in the article. IF there more up-to-date references, please make the necessary corrections.AnthroGael (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Official language (fair compromise)

Blaikie et al, in two subsequent hearings, merely clarified Section III as meaning that official documents must be published in both English and French. However, French is still the official language of the province, regardless of how many languages are required to be produced by provincial government entities.

I understand the objection, but Section I has not been amended or stricken, and therefore it still stands. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored everything, but added a notation that English is unofficial but used in courts and legislature. Now that should be a fair compromise as Section I is clear and yet English is obviously used just as much. I didn't notice the alternate name revision and restored the previous version- that should have never been revised. Sorry :) Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, you're simply incorrect. Read the Blaikie opinion. English and French were made co-official under section 133 of the BNA and Quebec can't simply amend the constitution in this area on its own. Laws (and regulations) in both Canada and Quebec have to be enacted in both English and French to have the force of law and the English versions are equally authoritative. If that's not the description of an official language I don't know what is.

Moreover, any person has the right to address, plead, and receive judgments in the courts of Quebec in either French or English as well as debate in the legislative assembly in either language. The books and records of the legislative assembly also must be kept in both languages. English isn't "unofficial" but fully co-equal in all legal aspects.

As for the striking of parts of the Charter of the French language, as any lawyer knows, laws printed in a statute book do not always have the force of law. For instance, good chunks of the Criminal Code are non-operative because of court decisions. G. Csikos, 1 January 2007.

No matter what you may say, I read the Blaikie opinion and the judgements and the analysis, and I is still in force as French being the only official language of Quebec- just because English is used in various government functions does not make it an official language. It has not been declared an official language, and if it is not official then it must be... that's right- unofficial. English is not the official language of the United States, and yet... that's right... it is used throughout all government institutions.

By the law, it is stated that French is official and English is not given this status in the province of Quebec- therefore, French is the only official language. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 133 of the BNA:

Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.

The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.

In no form do I see that English is made an official language- it is used "in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec", as stated above. English is used, even though it is not official as I expressed above. Blaikie merely upheld this section, and did not make it an official language. Why is this so difficult to see? I am at a loss... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blaikie judgement declared sections 7 to 13 (Language of the Legislature and the Courts) of the Charter of the French Language to be ultra vires the Quebec leglisature, which means they are invalid and of no force.

I just think the term "unofficial" is deceptive and insulting since English is co-equal with French in every legal respect. The only difference is that French is the sole language of government administration. Consequently I suggest using "quasi-official" instead.

By the way, the majority of US states have designated English as official in one way or another. In the rest of the states and for the federal government English is the de facto official language. G. Csikos, 3 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.199.4 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly fine by me. I'll accept quasi-official, even though we may disagree on the status of English in the province. :) Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we disagree on the status of English but rather the definition of official! :) G. Csikos, 3 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.199.4 (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The official language is whatever the law says it is. All the law has to do is just say "this language is official". Every jurisdiction will have different interpretations of what "official" means exactly. We just have to go by what they call "official". Obviously Quebec is constrained to grant English equal status in the courts and the legislature, but if you look at all of the requirements for provincial and local government bodies to operate in French, for businesses to communicate with the government in French, and at a host of other privileges for French, it's pretty clear its legal status is much higher than that of English. I would describe the situation as one of English enjoying significant legal protection in Quebec, not of it being official or quasi-official. More to the point: what quotes from reliable, academic sources describe English as being "quasi-official" in Quebec? Joeldl (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really I have to tend to agree with Joel here. As far as I know 'quasi-official' is not anywhere even a quasi-official term !? not even on Wikipedia !? Besides Quebec is officially and overwhelmingly described in Quebec by Quebec and by Quebecers as having only one official language and often also as being (officially?) unilingual (with quite a few bilingual individuals bien sur) and also as practicing (generally) a policy (usually) of official unilingualism - although sometimes a little bilingualism does manage to to creep back in again but almost always only to be met with general uproar and more oficial unilingualism - and even if the Quebec authorities do feel politically constrained enough to still oficially have to officially appear to officially respect some of the offically federally mandated and officially 'protected' (?!) 'official-language-minority' 'rights' (!?), Quebec does not itself officially use the term offical-language-minority and Canada does not see fit to discuss the official status of the official language(s) in Quebec, so that consequently the quasi(?)-official unilingual status of Quebec is officially unchallenged. Besides has anyone ever heard of any other situation where use of an official or quasi-offiial language is actually officially restricted? And while one might officially have the right to use English in court when was the last time anyone actually dared to speak English in the Assemblee Nationale ? I think a fair compromise would be to describe Quebec as officially having only one official language and as being officially unilingual with official restrictions on the use of other languages, but with some exceptions to the official policy being officially provided for. Or a more concise fair summation of that fact. Unless and until the Canadian government does officially say anything about and/or do anything about the official status of English in Quebec I think using the term quasi-official to describe the status of English in quasi-independent Quebec is a gross exaggeration. I hope that does not sound too much like a rant because I am actually trying against all odds to be strictly accurate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalexdij (talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's clear English is an official language of Canada, so in that sense nobody disputes that anglophones are an official language minority, as long as official language means "federal official language". Also, I have heard English spoken in the National Assembly - it's just not used often because there's no translation. I agree with all your other points, especially that so much is made of French being the official language that we should have really good reasons before contradicting that. Joeldl (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if I allowed myself to be overly pedantic I might quibble about the 'coequal' standing but I think overall you have found a fair compromise--Paulalexdij (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say what has been changed is right doesn't mean we all agree. We had a fair compromise to reflect the use of English within the province, and then it gets all mucked up again. Using the term 'quasi-official' satisfies both the official language of French and the quasi-official status as only PART of English is official in Quebec. Just because you arrive on the scene and change it does not make it consensus. We HAD consensus here, and until another consensus is reached, the quasi-official must stay with a disputed tag. I don't see enough participation in this new change to warrant a revert of the old consensus. Does this linguistic war ever end? Mon dieu!!! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want more opinions, here's mine: I too have misgivings about the label "quasi-official" (it's either official or it isn't), and I much prefer Paulalexdij's wording, in that it doesn't establish a non-existent class of linguistic status ("quasi-official"), for what is the second most commonly used language in the province.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I undid my revision, but be warned- this is not the last time you will hear about this. By removing English, this same issue will invariably come up over and over again. I fought originally to leave it as French only, so that is not the issue. What is the issue is that no one will truly be happy, and even the fairest and most logical of compromises cannot be sustained here, which is unfortunate. It is a true national nightmare that will never end, for someone is never happy. Huge sighs... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to realize that English has nearly every status the word "official" implies. From Wikipedia's own page on "official language":

"An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration."

If you read the two Blaikie judgements you will know that acts and regulations must be passed in English as well as French (not merely translated, but enacted), the books and records of the National Assembly must be kept in English and French, and one has the right to plead in court (both in writing and orally) in English or French. English therefore has what most people would consider is an official status in Quebec. Just because Quebec gave sole official sanction to French doesn't mean this in any way abrogates English's status as an essentially official language. Consequently, quasi-official is a good compromise. G. Csikos, 27 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.79.187 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the original wording that it is co-equal in the in the courts and at the National Assembly? It nicely avoids the obvious objection that English is not an official language.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my original wording but Joedl removed it from the paragraph. I think coequal is a good compromise for both the paragraph and the infobox. G. Csikos, 27 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.79.187 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the "quasi-official" wording was first removed by 207.236.193.195, but I agreed with them. By that time, my criticism of the infobox had been here for some time without getting a reply. Monsieurdl keeps talking about a compromise, but I don't know how broad that consensus was. Who exactly was involved? What do you do when what appears to be a small group of people say they've reached a "consensus" before others have really noticed what was going on? I think the people involved in this compromise still need to defend their position to others.

Before really thinking about it, I would have agreed that the statement "English and French are coequal in the legislature and in the courts" was accurate. After all, Section 133 of the Constitution guarantees that you can use either language in debates and pleadings, and that statutes are enacted in both languages. The question is, does this cover everything? For example, does this mean that the internal operations of the Legislature and courts must be bilingual? Does it mean that when you walk in the door of the Legislature, all the signs are in both languages? That political commentary on the National Assembly channel (which I think is run by the National Assembly) should be in both languages? The fact that the Charter of the French Language makes French the "official" language of these bodies suggests that whatever operations of these bodies are left out of Section 133 have the potential to treat French and English unequally.

The sources provided do not seem to mention the word "co-equal", so I would like to know what quotes precisely are being relied on. Because of what I wrote above, I think the content of Section 133 of the Constitution does not, by itself, mean the languages are co-equal in the legislature and the courts, unless an academic source can be found describing them that way, or a legal source that unambiguously has force of law. (As I've said, I was unable to find this statement in the sources.)

Finally, and most importantly, all of this is not important enough to go in the infobox. "Official language" is a word which in many jurisdictions has a symbolic meaning different from "administrative language". It's true we've identified some ways in which English is used administratively by the province. But they remain too minor overall for inclusion in the infobox, and they definitely fail the test in terms of what status Quebec gives English symbolically. Joeldl (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Joeldl, as anyone with sufficient legal experience can tell you, the internal operations of the courts and the National Assembly are bilingual in Quebec. Moreover, and although this is a ridulous objection, when I last visited the National Assembly in 2004, the signage is in both languages. The only sphere where French is exclusive is in the government ministries because the constitution is silent on the issue of the language of government administration. You should note that there is a distinction in parliamentary systems between the government administration, i.e. the Ministry, cabinet, etc., and the legislature and courts. In fact English is not an administrative language in Quebec. G. Csikos, 28 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.242.195 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source describing English and French as "co-equal" in the legislature and the courts, rather than forcing us editors to impart our own interpretation on an array of facts including the description of French as the language of the courts and the legislature in the Charter of the French Language. See articles 7-9. Also, that does not address the issue of the excessive prominence given to these facts in the infobox. That is more a matter of opinion, granted, and we can see what people think about that. And my point in using "administrative" was to distinguish that from the symbolic character of an official language, not to get into details about whether it concerns the executive branch.Joeldl (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, could I ask you to pick one of the IP addresses you've used, and on its user page list all of the IP addresses under which you've contributed recently to the article on the issue of the status of English? I'm positive you're not trying to trick anybody, but that way there will be no confusion as to whether those contributions come from a single user. Joeldl (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that English has 'official legal standing' in the courts and in the Assemblee Nationale and that laws are required to be promulgated in English as well and not just in French (although these same laws also normally state that if there is a conflict between the interpretation of the French and English versions then the French one takes precedence although how legally valid that clause is I couldn't say), but I challenge anyone to find the terms 'quasi-official' or 'coequal' used anywhere in any kind of official or quasi-official way (even on Wikipedia)!

Anyway, legal quibbles aside, most of the world understands the term 'official language' to mean the language(s) in which an administration habitually, normally, and regularly conducts its business ... perhaps we should get the opinion of dictionaries on the meaning of this term rather than just relying on another Wikipedia article.

In any case the 'problem' here is that English is not an official language of Quebec and it is not an unofficial language of Quebec and it is not a quasi-official language of Quebec (although I acknowledge that at least two people like that new term even though its meaning is entirely nebulous :)) so we need to find an accurate way of describing the actual factual status of English in a more commonly accepted current form of the English language, notwithstanding the noble yet frantic desire for consensus.

I propose simply amending the current wording of 'However, English has a constitutionally entrenched status coequal with French in the legislature and in the courts', by striking the words 'coequal with French' so that it just reads 'However, English has a constitutionally entrenched status in the legislature and in the courts'. This easily remedies the problem of trying to find some acceptable accurate fair clear justification for the term 'coequal' while also recognising the fact that every government of Quebec since at least 1948 has gone out of its way bending over backwards in its efforts to make English not coequal--Paulalexdij (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also propose changing the wording in the infobox to: Official language: French
(English has legal standing in the courts and the legislature)

And I propose changing 'many government services are offered in English' to 'many government services are often also offered in English' since those many services are not always thus offered and if they are, are done so in a clearly secondary manner. --Paulalexdij (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, just because successive governments (usually UN or PQ) have tried to erase the co-equal status of English in the legislature and courts does not make it valid. Please READ the Blaikie judgements (1979 and 1981). G. Csikos, 28 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.242.195 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you could possibly have missed the part where I asked for the specific quotes you're relying on. Only then can we begin to judge whether they say what you say they say. Better yet, please provide the quotes in the body of the article in the footnotes. I believe that Articles 7-9 as amended are in force, and that they make French the language of the legislature and the courts subject to the provisions of section 133 of the Constitution, which at least suggests that when they wrote that, they thought there was something left open by section 133.Joeldl (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive:

"... s. 133 is not part of the Constitution of the Province within s. 92(1) but is rather part of the Constitu­tion of Canada and of Quebec in an indivisible sense, giving official status to French and English in the Parliament and in the Courts of Canada as well as in the Legislature and Courts of Quebec."

G. Csikos, 28 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.242.195 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do agree with you that legally speaking in legal terms the English language does still have legal standing in the courts and the legislature, but my concern is with the use of the word 'coequal' and whether or not that word should be used in this article. I have read the Blaikie judgements and nowhere in them is the word 'coequal' used at all although those judgements do appear to make it abundantly clear that English is still to be regarded as coequal (in the strictly legal sense of the word).

However, my main objection to the way things are worded now is just that it conveys a false impression of the 'facts on the ground'. Blaikie et al make a good point in saying that it is overly technical to hold that derivative tribunals do not fall under the ambit of the original act. And it would surely seem also overly technical to imagine that policy has no effect on the overall status of English.

So, I do happen to agree with you that the Blaikie judgement does convey 'coequal legal standing' to English, but only if we use the word 'coequal' in its purely legal sense. My objection to the use of the word 'coequal' here is that it also has a wider more general better known sense beyond the narrow range of its legal definition. So I think that a fair compromise would be to specify that we mean coequal in the legal sense of the word only by inserting the word 'legally' in front of the word 'coequal' as follows:

In the infobox: (English is legally coequal in the legislature and in the courts but not in the administration.)

In the text: However, many provincial government services are often also offered in English as well as in French, and English does have a constitutionally entrenched status which makes it legally coequal in the legislature and in the courts [7][8][9].

Do you think that wording is a fair compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalexdij (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) --Paulalexdij (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am still having severe misgivings about using the word 'coequal' since we as Wikipedia contributors do not really have sufficient legal standing to be making such legal interpretations even if they do appear to be quite clearly meant in the judgement. But I don't know how I would further refine my proposed edits (see above please).--Paulalexdij (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we brainstorm on a list of words?

Official in the legislature ...

Coequal in the legislature ...

Recognized in the legislature ...

Official status in the legislature ...

Official standing in the legislature ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.242.195 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

G. Csikos, 28 January 2008

Why not provide the whole quote:

• He found that s. 133 is not part of the Constitution of the Province within s. 92(1) but is rather part of the Constitu­tion of Canada and of Quebec in an indivisible sense, giving official status to French and English in the Parliament and in the Courts of Canada as well as in the Legislature and Courts of Quebec.

That's a lower court. Joeldl (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read appellate rulings before. They're affirming the original ruling from the Superior Court judge.

In holding that s. 133 of the B.N.A. Act applied to delegated legislation, Deschênes C.J.S.C., whose reasons for judgment were adopted by the Court of Appeal and by this Court, did not undertake to define the extent of the delegated legislation affected.

G. Csikos, 28 January 2008

Having "official status in..." does not necessarily mean "being an official language of". It could mean some official status. If it is true that English is an "official" language of the legislature and the courts, it should be mentioned somewhere that way in secondary sources. Certainly, the current version of the Charter doesn't see things the way you do.Joeldl (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I would go with 'recognized'. (Actually I would prefer 'recognised' but that would raise another question about what form of the English language is officially official in various jurisdictions which we really needn't get into here). And I might also suggest using the word 'concurrent' in place of 'coequal'. But perhaps not.

Anyway my proposed versions are now:

In the infobox: Official language French[2] (English is recognised in the legislature and in the courts.)

In the text: However, many provincial government services are often also offered in English, and English does have a constitutionally entrenched status which provides it with concurrent standing in the legislature and in the courts [7][8][9].

Although actually I have to say that I tend to agree with Joel that the status of English has been effectively sufficiently diminished to make it seem like a bit of a stretch to actually mention this recognised concurrent standing in the infobox at all. --Paulalexdij (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's sort out what is true enough to go in the body of the text first. Then we can deal with the issue of emphasis. Joeldl (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

okay, well based on the finding of the lower court mentioned further above regarding the status of s. 133, and taking into consideration the evident ambivalence of the rewritten articles 7 and 9 and the absence of a higher court ruling, a reasonable person would have to consider both s. 133 of bna and articles 7 and 9 to be in force, which means surely that a) english has concurrent standing in the legislature and courts and b) that french is the only official language of quebec; unless there is some judgement or finding or opinion contradicting this!? --Paulalexdij (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In the body of the text, I would write:

• However, many provincial government services are also provided in English, and English has constitutionally protected legal status alongside French in the courts and in the legislature.

We can have links to section 133 of the constitution and articles 7-9 of the Charter, which establish this fact.Joeldl (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is how a federal government webpage Language Regimes in the Provinces and Territories summarizes the situation:

• French is the official language of Quebec.
• The English-speaking community is entitled to services in English in the areas of justice, health and education. Services in English are offered in municipalities in which more than half of the residents have English as their mother tongue.
• The use of French and English is permitted in legislative proceedings, before the courts, and for the printing and publication of Acts of the Legislature and records and journals of the Legislative Assembly.

The first two are provided for by the Charter, the last by Section 133. Joeldl (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't we just prevail in 1759 and avoid all of this nonsense? *SIGH* Quebec never agreed to the Constitution of Canada.

What you just posted from the Language Regimes does in fact support the usage of quasi-official- who cares if it is a legal term or not? It is a description of how English is used in Quebec, and quasi meaning "having some resemblance", which it does. English is required in areas of services, legislative proceedings, before the courts, and publications of various documents. Therefore, it is used as an official language in some matters- it is not suggested, it is not tolerated, but it is required!

And to respond to the earlier questioning of consensus- what makes two opinions carry more weight than two other ones who discussed this very same topic? I did defend my support for quasi-official, and still do, because the objection you raised is over the use of the term in academic sources, which is silly. This game of semantics and hunting word choices among different sources deviates from the discussion and is a red herring. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that two opinions carry more weight than another two, though by now I think more than two people have expressed disagreement. By the same token, the two editors involved in the original "consensus" do not carry more weight than any other two. I think choice of words and the prominence given to this is an important issue. If not, then why are you defending your preference tooth and nail?

Note that for New Brunswick, the federal webpage says explicitly:

• French and English are the official languages of the Legislative Assembly, legislation and the courts.

It does not say the same thing for Quebec. That is because the law does not say that English is an official language of the legislature and the courts unless you go putting interpretations on one sentence buried in a court ruling referring to another court ruling. If it had been perfectly clear that English was an official language of these bodies, I don't see why the webpage would not have said the same thing about Quebec that it says about New Brunswick.

Also, this does not resolve the issue of the infobox, and on that issue, I think we'll have to appeal to a larger number of editors.

Personally, I think the federal webpage summary could be adopted practically as is, subject to copyright, I guess. It's neutral and says exactly what it means directly instead of using the word "official" in an opaque and perhaps misleading way. And certainly, "equal" is not supported by he quotes given.Joeldl (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the use of quasi-official. G. Csikos, 29 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.242.195 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of 'quasi-official' has been proposed and seconded. But there are more than two people who are opposed to using this unclear inexact invented word which conveys a false sense of the importance of the English language in Quebec. I agree with Joel that the best solution is to adopt the wording of the federal webpage summary practically as is and not to use words like 'coequal' which has a general more wider meaning outside legal circles nor 'quasi-official' which is an invented word with little precedent in either legal or general circles.
The main problem here is that those words exaggerate the status of English in Quebec and I don't know why anyone would want to pretend that English is more important than it is!? And incidentally the federal webpage summary does not support the use of the word 'required' although the Blaikie judgement clearly does.
'quasi' may well mean just 'bears some resemblance to' to some people but to most people it means the same as it does in the original Latin ( quam = as + si = if ) or in colloquial Canadian "azif" and I really don't think that most people would describe English as having a status as if it were official in Quebec.
This is not an objection related to the use of 'quasi' in academic sources but related to the use of the word 'quasi' in ordinary English.
The discussion about this important issue related to the proper use of language in an important article has in any case appeared to overlook the fact that no adjective is necessary here at all. We do not need to replace the adjective, but rather merely to describe accurately the status of English without the misleading use of these or any other misleading adjectives. I will now state my proposals and I would appreciate it if people would kindly comment on these proposals specifically and refrain from making general comments about the use of languages in Quebec that are outside the scope of this discussion about the best way to write this article. Please. Thank you.
However, the English-speaking community is entitled to services in English in the areas of justice, health and education, and services in English are offered in municipalities in which more than half of the residents have English as their mother tongue. The use of French and English is permitted in legislative proceedings and before the courts, and is required for the printing and publication of Acts of the Legislature.
We would of course have to put a link to one of the Blaikie opinions after the word 'required'. I will leave the question of what to put in the infobaox for now.--Paulalexdij (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Paulalexdij. Joeldl (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody objected to the proposed change presented five days ago I have gone ahead and implemented the revised wording on the status of English. Although perhaps this detail is too long for the intro and should be relegated to the section on languages?--Paulalexdij (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Too much detail for lead. I think it's enough to say that there is a sizeable English-speaking population and that many government and private-sector services are available in English, especially in Montreal. --Soulscanner (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

French (the only official language in Québec)

Why you made by linguistic racism ?? The only official language in Québec is French ! In effect the Quebec speaks French, furthermore as others provinces Canada and Alberta speaks English ainci that of other one provinces of the Canada! What makes that the Canada is a bilingual country (French, English). Lipton1995 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See the topic right above this for the compromise. Please just don't change thing unilaterally here. We try to operate this page on at least some consensus (and lots of compromise). It works a lot better than just pushing your version over other's. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the charter of the french language states that the official language of Quebec is french so I don't know why some people insist to put english as an official language since it is not the case. Having a special treatment in legislature and courts does not make it official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.92.164 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in canada: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#languages[5]. BETA 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Title 1, Chapter III, Section 7 of The Charter Of The French Language clearly states: "French is the language of the legislature and the courts in Quebec", and the use of English in the courts of Quebec is legislative courtesy only. http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/title1chapter3.html [6] BETA 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You said it, not us. English can be used, which makes it a de facto quasi-official or coequal language. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain election materials are distributed in Aboriginal languages. If you don't recognize that there's an issue of where to draw the line, then we might as well include that in the infobox too. Joeldl (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quebec or "Province of Quebec"?

May I please ask User:ArmchairVexillologistDon to please provide citations that the "official" name of the province is "Province of Quebec" as opposed to just "Quebec"? If such is indeed the case, all the articles fr every province in Canada should also be changed accordingly. However, for starters, I've put up a "citation needed" tag so that he can provide the appropriate, authoritative references. Failing that, we should just revert to "Quebec", IMHO.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-form name of "Province of Quebec", ou "Province du Quebec" en francais

Hello Ramdrake.

long-form name: Province of Quebec, Province du Quebec

short-form name: Quebec.

These are facts.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citations to this effect; also, please stop reverting the incorrect statement that the Quebec naùtion is specifically restricted to French-speaking people.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Try the British North America Acts (1867-1975).

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which has been to most intents and purposes been replaced by the Canadian Constitution. Do you have anything more current on which to base your assertion? In all its official documents, Quebec refers to itself nowadays as just "Quebec".--Ramdrake (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Canada Act 1982 consolidated the British North America Acts (1867-1975) into its body of statutes. The citation of Province of Quebec (or Province du Quebec) is still in there.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at the full text of the Canada Act (1982) here and "Province of Quebec" isn't mentioned even once, but "Quebec" is mentioned two, maybe three times. From this, I would be tempted to believe AVD's mistaken.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick skim of the Constitution Act, 1982 shows every reference to Quebec is "Quebec". There is no reference at all to "Province du Quebec". The postal code was PQ a while ago, but is now also QC. So, who went and invited the Quebec Nationalists to come edit today? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Royalguard11. You do know that the long-form name of your home province is the Province of Saskatchewan, and its short-form name is Saskatchewan right?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Canada is officially the Dominion of Canada, but no one has called it that for 150 years. It's "Canada", just Canada. Nobody uses long form names anymore. Lived in Saskatchewan all my life (minus the last couple months), never ever heard anyone call it "Province of Saskatchewan" because it's ludicrous. No province in the country prefixes their name with "Province of" anymore. It's old fashion, out of date, and basically unused. The english of the country call it Quebec, not Province of Quebec (and we use WP:COMMONNAME here -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Royalguard11. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is really just Great Britain and Northern Ireland? As well, the United States of America is really just America?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The last (and only) time that "Province of Quebec" was the official name of a geographic location was in 1763-1791. The Province of Quebec was a small fraction of Quebec as we know it today. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Tomj (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The original British North America Act 1867, explicitly refers to the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of New Brunswick, the Province of Quebec, and the Province of Ontario. That 1867 statute was re-titled the Constitution Act 1867, and consolidated (BNA Act 1867-1975) into the Canada Act 1982. What do you think the re-titling schedule is for? For fun?

The LONG-FORM TITLES of the BNA Acts 1867-1975 were changed, but the CONTENTS (i.e., the references to the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of New Brunswick, the Province of Quebec, and the Province of Ontario, etc.,) remain.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/sched_e.html

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello AVD. Can you please cite the exact passage of the BNA Acts which specifically refers to the "Province of Quebec"? (I can't find it, so maybe I don't know where to look) Also, can you supply a cite which would verify that the WP:COMMONNAME of the province is indeed "Province of Quebec"? Also, a contemporary cite would be much preferable. Also, it would be much preferable if you waited until we settle this on the talk page and we have consensus over a position before you make your changes again. Insofar as I can tell, so far nobody seems to agree with you, therefore chances are you'll only keep getting reverted.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 6 of the BNA Act: "The Parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The Part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario; and the Part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the Province of Quebec."

Both the short and long-form names are equally valid, and as with nearly all cases of short-form/long-form names, the short-form is generally used in common speech, and the long-form is generally limited to formal settings.--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for what it's worth, the French form would be "Province de Québec" rather than "Province du Québec".--Ramdrake (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ramdrake. The United States of America is the long-form name of America. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the long-form name of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There is no reason for the long-form names of the country of Canada (i.e., the Dominion of Canada) and its Provinces and Territories (e.g., the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario) to be suppressed.

Why do all large portion of the Canadian Wikipedians here seem to want to throw away all of our past?

Where does this idea come from?

Province of Ontario reference

Here is an everyday press release from May 2006, from the Province of Ontario regarding Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.gov.on.ca/mgs/en/News/Print/053311.html

It would seem that the Province of Ontario sees fit to refer to its long-form name in ordinary press releases.

Province of Saskatchewan reference

On January 10, 2008, they refered to themselves as the Province of Saskatchewan.

http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=3e92407c-6b8c-487b-9a2d-74fb4dfc7d27

"This is a historic time in our history with Canada and the Province of Saskatchewan where the three levels of government have successfully negotiated and ratified this long outstanding Muskoday First Nation Treaty Land Entitlement Settlement Agreement," Chief Bear said. "Canada has now met her legal obligations with respect to Treaty 6 land provisions owed to the people of the Muskoday First Nation. With the additional treaty land and compensation we have the opportunity to further create economic development opportunities now and in the future."

If you go to the Government of Saskatchewan website, and type in term words Province of Saskatchewan you will get multiple (I mean multiple hits!) in the Search box.

Hmmm, Royalguard11 ... I thought you said such things (i.e, the Province of Saskatchewan) were ludicrous right?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I consider political BS to be political BS. So lets stop with the BS and get to the point. This isn't about history or throwing away history. The US doesn't have a short name, neither does the UK. Quebec does. You have shown no proof that it is the common or preferred designation. Government communiqués are 99% political BS and 1% information. Find me 10 articles in the Montreal Gazette, or the Toronto Star, or the National Post that refer to any province like that. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go eh ...

Province of Québec/Province de Québec Reference(s)

(English) Province of Québec

http://www.hema-quebec.qc.ca/anglais/menubas/condiutilisation.htm

"These Terms of Use will be governed and interpreted pursuant to the Laws of Québec (Canada). Any litigation related to these Terms of Use will be submitted to the exclusive juridiction of the Courts of the Province of Québec."

(French) Province de Québec

http://www.msp.gouv.qc.ca/prevention/prevention.asp?txtSection=publicat&txtCategorie=table_ronde&txtNomAutreFichier=annexe1.htm

"Fédération des comités de parents de la Province de Québec

Membre : M. Marc Arnold, 1er vice-président".

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your citations go to prove that the expression "Province of X" is an appropriate designation for the name of the provinces. There is no proof whatsoever that it is the preferred designation, and even less the (only) appropriate designation.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

About the accent

So that means war ! , just kidding , you convinced, me you will no see this text again. Thanks for explaining --Alex 8194 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

) I took your lesd and linked at the top to the well-written article about Quebec French and relegated the link to the faulty poorly-written article about demolinguistics to the bottom

--Paulalexdij (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

POV in lead

There are several things about Quebec more significant than the symbolic motion referred to in lead

• French-speaking majority
• Seccessionist movement
• Civil Law
• Official language
• Laws disallowing yellow margarine

This tag will not go until someone can show that the Quebecois nation motion is a more significant fact in Quebec than any of these. --Soulscanner (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The French language and the secessionist movement are already mentioned in the lead and have been for a while. I think most users will find it self-evedent that national identity is more important to an academic view of Quebec than their margarine laws. That only leaves the civil law, and I agree that it should be mentioned. I'll add it and take down the tag. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the tag back. I'm afraid I was somewhat unclear about my point. Referring to the Quebecois nation motion in the lead sentence implies that it is more consequential than, say, the [{Quiet revolution]], the 1980 and 1995 referenda, the Clarity Act, etc., which appear later in the lead. This puts an undue emphasis on it. In proper context, it belongs in the paragraph on the the Question nationale. It pushes POV in the first sentence. It is unusual to put politically contentious issues in the lead sentence. It invites vandalism and edit wars from those more interested in political debates than writing good articles. --Soulscanner (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, mention of the of meaning "Quebecois nation" cannot be mentioned as an absolute fact, like the fact that Quebec is a province or that the majority of Quebecers are francophone. The meaning of "Quebecois nation" is a very contentious subject, and some significant public figures in Canada even deny that it exists. I'm not here to argue one way or another on that subject; I'm pointing out that you need to mention those viewpoints (even briefly) if the topic is to be mentioned. A statement like "Quebec has a strong nationalist movement that considers Quebec a nation within Canada." That is a fact nobody can deny, even if you disagree with Quebec nationalists. It gets to the point of Quebec nationalism without getting into awkward issues of who is Quebecois, what's meant by "nation", etc. --Soulscanner (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of awkward, the word homeland is unfortunate too. It conjures up images of Black South African townships during the Apartheid era that Quebec doesn't deserve. The words foyer and patrie just do not translate well to English. I think the above statement would also work around that awkwardness. --Soulscanner (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to have the 'Quebecois nation motion' removed from the lead months ago, but gave up. Good luck, Soulscanner. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, you removed the nation motion, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Etymology and Territorial Expansion

Hi all. I'm not sure what the rationale is behind collapsing this section into the lead. I'm not opposed to this, its just that most feastured articles on contries/provinces/cities feature such a section. See the Canada Australia article for good models here. I also think that this makes the lead too long. I also think the picture of Samuel de Champlain, who is responsible for the name, made the article more attractive. Please discuss this change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A hint 2

Hello everybody !

Quebec is a nation too, so I added it up.

Thank you very much, and keep up the good work !—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Quebec nation question is mentioned later in lead. --soulscanner (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The province itself isn't a nation. The francophones, anglophones, inuit, natives (for example) are nations within the province. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit reverted once again for the third time. Please, not this again. Look carefully in the history of the talk page and you'd see lengthy and tiring discussions whether we should put the "nation" term in the intro or not. Please don't put it back in again without talking this matter up...but first, please read the history. If you have no new arguments that are not POV, then it is best to leave it be because this has been discussed ad nauseum and there is no consensus agreeing to include this. Quebec nation issue is already mentioned further down in the article if you haven't really bothered reading that far. And please don't get into an edit war. You already put it twice after two reversals. It's not included for a reason. And do not delete other people's comments off the talk page. Continue this behavior and I'll have to report you. You'll achieve nothing from this. Pieuvre (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi-protect. It was granted. That blocks out anonymous IP's and new users. --soulscanner (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can add on word to the introduction since the full explanation is later in the article.

Thank you and merry xmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgsylv (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all there, Soulscanner. Your revert is thus illegal. Seriously. There was a consensus we reached after discussion. You broke it. Pgsylv (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus has placed mention of Quebec nation question in the fourth paragraph of the lead. The edit you have been making has been reverted countless times in the past few days due to anonymous vandals, and the page is now in semi-protection because of it. Please do not continue this vandalism. --soulscanner (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, if Quebecois nation is added to the introduction one more time? I'm gonna request adding Leafs nation to the Ontario article's introduction. The province itself is not a naton. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. 70.83.226.185 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, please stop your vandalism and use of bad faith. You have changed the article since the consensus was reached, and you know it. So please remain civilized democratic in your actions. Pgsylv (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A discussion about the same matter took place moths ago. It was concluded, with evidence, that even Steven Harper acknowledged that Quebec is a nation within Canada. I originally opposed the addition of nation into Quebec was not necessary and faulty, however, after a statement from the a person like Steven Harper my opinion changed. It seems that this same problem is taking place again. There is citation from BBC calling Quebec a nation within Canada and therefore it should be included into wikipedia. Clearly this notion is substantial and is backed by WP:RS. With that being said a compromise can be achieved if the sentence in the current lead is taken out. It would work better if maybe the last paragraph of the lead is can have the "Quebec is recognized as a nation within Canada". Watchdogb (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Harper acknowledged the Quebecois as a nation within Canada, not Quebec. This means that not all Quebecers are included int he definition. We've been through this. --soulscanner (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what is the problem then ? You admit that "Quebecois as a nation within Canada". We are assured, by you, that we can add that to the lead then. Resolved. Good doing discussion with you Watchdogb (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this motion is very important. It was a symbolic motion of no legal consequence. It already says in the 4th paragraph of the lead that Quebec nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation. The motion is a reflection of this long standing fact. --soulscanner (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it is written now is not pleasing the "other" side. I think it would be best to include something that reflect that "Quebecois as a nation within Canada". Watchdogb (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about pleasing sides. It's about stating relevant facts. There is a strong nationalist movement in Quebec. It believes that Quebec is a nation. Why would anyone dispute that claim? It is standard practice on wikipedia to solve POV disputes by simply ascribing POV statements (i.e. Quebec is a nation; Quebec is not a nation) to those holding the opinion. As for the Quebecois nation motion, it is not a significant enough law to mention in the lead. Why not start by mentioning the Clarity Act or The Quebec Language Charter? Both are far more important than a symbolic motion. --soulscanner (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should start to follow that. There is RS claiming what I wanted to add. According to you, then we can add it per wikipedia own policies. Thank you Watchdogb (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The resolution had the House of Commons recognise that the Québécois (i.e. people keeping the language and culture of the pre-Conquest Quebec) form a nation within a united Canada. The province is not recognised as a nation in any sense of the word. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This had to be in the intro and you changed it:

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."[16][17][18] although there is considerable debate and :uncertainty over what this means.[19][20]

Put it back and we won't write that " Quebec is a province and a nation ".

Thank you. Pgsylv (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He recognized the Quebcois (the francophone majority in Quebec) as a nation; not the province itself. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If nation is gonna be added into the introduction (and kept). Then please people, do it correctly. It's the Quebecois (Quebec's francophone majority) that the HoC recognized as a nation within Canada; not Quebec (the province) itself. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- I figured the Leafs nation bit, might give everyone a chuckle (loosen everyone up). GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should go and take care of your Leafs Nation, or the USA II , or whatever, but I suggest you leave Quebec politics because you don't seem to understand much of it. Pgsylv (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure, trying to reason with you. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll meet GoodBye GoodDay ;) "chuckle" Pgsylv (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend full protection on that page. Pgsylv (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to control yourself as well. Ad hoc attacks and constant revertals will not make you look better. Pieuvre (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

« Quebec operates North America's largest and most extensive civil service. » reference ??? I don't understand what you're talking about here ?!? And if it's the case, what the author wants to imply ? That Quebec is more social-democrat than the rest of North America ? It's probably true, but that's a point that need to be developed somewhere else than in the introduction of this article and not only by the point of view of the number of civil servents. Another sentence : « However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. » The 2006 census says : 7,9% of the Quebec population is anglophone. Significant ? Plus 50% of the 12% of allophones mostly speaks English (though most of them knows French). Is this a significant (!?!) minority ? That's not the way I would phrase it. Plus, English is not widely spoken. In fact, 56% of the Quebec population speaks only French, 5% only English, 38% are bilingual. [7] (1996) The Canadian Press (La Presse Canadienne, 04/12/2007) says 42% of the francophones can stand a conversation, 33% consider themselves bilingual. Optimistically, I would say. Most of them don't use it often and have a hard time watching English TV for example. So English is not widely spoken, it has to be rephrase. In large part of Montreal, you'd have a real hard time finding somebody to speak English with. The anglophones are concentrated in the west of the island, the allophones in the north, the est and south are francophone. So the author's phrase is not neutral. It sounds like the author wants to tell the reader that the assimilation is on the way, don't give up !!! An other phrase : « Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec. » Civil law remain strong ?!? Like if it was to go away, like if the author which it goes away ! French civil law is and will be the civil laws in Quebec. In fact, it has been revised lately and it is Quebec civil law, based a long time ago on French civil law. An other wrong sentence : « Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada. » It's not only the nationalist movement that considers the Québécois people as a nation, the House of Commons and the National Assembly have officially recognize this fact. Quebec is the homeland of the Québécois nation (the people). The nationalist movement doesn't advocates for greater autonomy, it strongly advocates for independence, for the creation of a country for its people. Neutrality, please. velero --96.20.5.166 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Be careful of he wording. It is Quebec nationalists that consider the Province of Quebec to be a nation. All provincial parties in the National Assembly are nationalist. Jean Charest and Mario Dumont are both nationalists, and they advocate for more autonomy without independence. It's only the PQ (some of them anyways) that advocate for independence. The Québécois nation can refer to old-stock Quebecers only, or those who identify with the culture. The Cree of northern Quebec, the Inuit of Northern Quebec, and English-speaking Quebecers would mostly not be apart of this nation because they are not francophone. Many nationalists would oppose this definition. All three political parties maintain that all Quebeckers are Quebecois.

As for widely spoken, if you have a 40% chance that the person you talk to will speak English (about every second person), that's widely spoken in my books. I should point out that if someone wrote that mosy francophones were unilingual and couldn't speak a second language, he'd be accused of trying to make the Quebecois look like racist morons; I've had that one too. You can't win. --soulscanner (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec is a province of Canada. The Quebecois (Quebec francophones) are a nation within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Québécois, not Québec. Thanks. I corrected my text. velero --96.20.5.166 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Many Quebec nationalists would disagree. All political parties in Quebec consider all Quebecers (anglos, natives, immigrants) to be Quebecois. --soulscanner (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The HoC and National Assembly's motions wrote "Québécois", even in English. And Harper has never said it's only the "old stock Quebecois" (Québécois de souche) form as a nation, but all of those who consider themselves as Quebecois. He was specific it is not up to him to make a definition who are Quebecois, but up to the person to identify himself as Quebecois and if that person does, he is Quebecois. It boils down how you identify yourself and that's what Harper wanted to imply in that motion. If you still think it's still unclear, you could mention this further down in the article on Harper's original intent about the motion. ([8]) As for the language mention. It is true that only 36% of the Quebecois population consider themselves as bilingual ([9]), but a majority (56%) of Montrealers is ([10]). In this context, "significant" meaning "considerable influence", though it's not clear enough. So I suggest adding "However, English has a significant role in Quebec because of its English-speaking minority, especially in Montreal, and just over a third of its population is bilingual. [11]." I know the wording is not perfect but I'm hoping you could finetune it more. Pieuvre (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that most nationalist parties in Quebec consider all Quebecers to be Quebecois, whether they want to be included or not. That is their interpretation. Harper's interpretation is that only those who consider themselves Quebecois are Quebecois. That's mostly (but not exclusively) French Canadians living in Quebec, and most anglophones do not identify as Quebecois. With the nationalists parties it's a question of citizenship (as in Manitoba or New Brunswick), with Harper (and Dion) it's a question of cultural identity (as in the Metis or Acadians). The nationalists use this interpretation to try to get more autonomy for the Quebec government, while the others have their definition to deny it. It's a cheap, semantic game on all sides. The Quebcois nation motion is itself meaningless legally. The Clarity Act, Bill 101, the Constitution Act, referendum laws,etc. are all of greater consequence.

Now, as for the prominence of English in Quebec, I think it does need more quantification "About half the population speaks English, and here is a significant English-speaking community concentrated in Montreal." Very simple; it's imortant to avoid over analysis in the lead and to keep it short. It doesn't exaggerate, it doesn't diminish. Perhaps widely spoken is too relative. My experience is that Americans tend to be surprised at the large amount of French in Quebec (they think it's like Spanish in Florida, Texas or California), and Canadians outside Quebec are surprised by the large amount of English. --soulscanner (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true those parties will say that, but they wanted to say that all groups are included. That's politics. And you would be surprised there are many anglophones that consider Quebec as their home and consider themselves to be Quebecois as well as Canadians. This is not 1975 any more. Things have calmed down a lot and a majority of anglophones and allophones have embraced Bill 101 (I don't have a source but I read it somewhere last fall!). You could suggest the three Quebecois parties' interpretation about the National Assembly motion and Harper's in the House of Common motion if you think it's worth pointing out the slight difference.

And where did you get "about half of the population" from? If you mean Montreal, that's true, but this is a Quebec article, so I think it's enough to mention Quebec's portion of bilinguals only. We can mention the importance and greater presence of Montreal's bilingualism compared to Quebec down in the language section because I think there are enough paragraphs in the lead.

Actually I am thinking about expanding the "Language" in the article to explain a little more and include the percentage of francophones, anglophones, and allophones in the population plus the significative numbers of bilinguals with first Montreal compared to the rest of Quebec and then Quebec compared to the rest of Canada. What do you think? I won't make it too big, but just report the key infos. 24.37.113.206 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)(That was me: Pieuvre)

I added more infos in the language section. I hope it looks good and let me know if something looks wrong.Pieuvre (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Having grown up in PA "all your life," how come you seem to say "informations" and "homeworks" as an imperfectly bilingual Québécois would. Information and homework are singulare tantums (mass nouns) in English. It's just bizzare. G. Csikos, 18 February 2008

Please keep my personal life out of the Wiki talk pages except my own userpage. No one is perfect with grammar, not even for the native speakers. Ok, I didn't know they shouldn't be in plural, but c'mon...does it really matter? Personally I don't really care over that small slip-up. I can't keep in mind of every rule found in the English language. If you think I made some mistakes in my contributions in the articles, then I wouldn't have a problem with you correcting them. Cheers. Pieuvre (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who put up the personal information about yourself. It's just odd for a native speaker of English without any other mother tongue to make that kind of mistake. Of course you should know they shouldn't be in plural -- I mean, it just sounds strange! That's why I'm wondering whether you are truly who you say you are. G. Csikos, 19 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.242.195 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. I was wondering why you had to question me like that. Honestly, if you want to see who I am...let's just stick to my talkpage, not here, hmmm? ;) Pieuvre (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is total crap. You guys don't even know what you are talking about. Most of the people involved in this discussion would love to see Quebeckers assimilated to the Canadians. It's never going to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.197.88 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We're all Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, LOL. Canada = USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're an American? GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A true Quebecois nationalist would never call himself Canadian. Pieuvre (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec has not signed the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec has never needed to sign the Constitution. It would only be nice if it did. G. Csikos, 19 February 2008

A hint

The english term for "Québecois" is: Quebecker

Well, not for Soulscanner !! And his 1980's references AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating and GA

I have reduced the rating of this article from A to B. The simple reason is that it isn't even a good article. The bigger reason however, is that this article is far from A quality. We need more sources for 1, ALOT more sources. Considering the size of it, I consider 34 footnotes to be very pitful, especialy since alot of the are not even in proper format. Secondly, this article needs some re-writing to expand some sections, cut some cruft, and improve the overall prose. May I suggest following the aformentioned points, nominating it for GA status, and going through a peer review process before even thinking that this article is close to A quality. -- Reaper X 03:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what shall we do to bring this article back where it was? I could go hunt sources since I'm the best providing informations than doing some major edits. Pieuvre (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing it, it never 'should have been' an A-class. I can't be too specific, I haven't given the article a detailed analysis yet. May I suggest looking at good article criteria. -- Reaper X 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't answering to you, but asking to the editors here. We'll try to work on it. Thanks. ;) Pieuvre (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I started cleaning up the mess a while ago. The sections in the Canada page would be good to use for Quebec. I used this model to cleanup Etymology and Geography sections. The History section needs to be condensed ... vandals amd POV pushers love history, it seems. --soulscanner (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Soon, I'll start hunting up the sources and add them in. That's the best I could do - providing the information. I prefer to leave the editing to someone else. Pieuvre (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Soulscanner, this article is crap since you started your "clean-up" full of POV. This article was writen by RCMP agents, that's what happened.

Quebec is not a canadian matter, it never signed the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider 34 footnotes to be very pitful

I totally agree with this. The history section is just ridiculous as it is. Sadly, I have to salute the fact that this article was downgraded. Luc Boudreau —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)