Talk:Quebec/Archive 8

Early European exploration

The French also sent many donnes to Canada, many were killed but one man eustaush lambert became a powerful donne that protected the natives and became the first Canadian general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.80.31 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Quebecois nation" a notable topic?

Please comment at RfC posted at Quebecois article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of symbolic motions on "Quebec nationhood"

The notability of these symbolic motions are not significant enough for the lead, and pushes a sovereignist POV (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight). They are no longer significant political issues. The political debate over these has been surpassed by other events, and spinning them as historically significant is only done by the Bloc and Parti Quebecois. Including these old and mostly meaningless motions advances the political agenda of the Bloc and Parti Quebecois only. Any reference to the "Quebec nation" needs to be accompanied by caveats explaining the controversial and inherent politicized context surrounding the term. There is not enough room to do this in the lead. to the exclusion of other more important events and debates. --soulscanner (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

I have reverted this. Both the greater autonomy sought by the provincial parties (whether within the scope of Canadian federalism or as an independent state, both of which resonate throughout much of recent Quebec history) and the 'Québécois nation' motion (important as it provides comparison to other notions in the lead regarding Quebec as a province, Canada as a federation, etc) are both important enough to include. Also, I think it important to point out that a glance at the article history reveals that you previously participated in a similar discussion, seemed to be the sole objector to including this notion, and thereafter supported including it (qualified) and arrived at neutral wording; see Talk:Quebec/Archive7#Consensus_version_1. As said notions are mentioned even later in this introduction and essentially unchanged from before, the text may merit edition but not your solitary addition of POV tags to it. Please feel free to reformulate the text, but I maintain that you must garner more support for the addition of these tags before doing so again. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The seeking of greater autonomy is worth mentioning indeed. This can be best referenced with a link to a complete reference describing Quebec nationalism, not links to minor symbolic resolutions that only sovereignists push as important. If we include every trivial law and motion regarding the issue of federal-provincial power balances and Quebec identity politics, the lead will become very large indeed. Neither of these "nation" motions is currently in the news (as they were when they were inserted), and their historical relevance is doubtful (they certainly don't resonate like the Riel Rebellions, the Conscription Crisis, the October Crisis, or the Referendums). The wording arrived at originally may have been be neutral (in fact, it has now been altered several times), but it's inclusion here is not neutral. It is simply not an issue. It's inclusion plays to a strong Quebec nationalist bias. Including the Clarity Act or October Crisis, for example, although even more significant to any symbolic resolutions, would also lead to problematic POV issues, no matter how neutrally you word them. These referenced items need to be moved, along with the references, to the history section, which is full of similar problems.

Regarding the tags, I believe there is a good-faith dispute here regarding the referenced material. That justifies the tags. I recommend we follow the guidelines regarding NPOV disputes. If you have arguments to make for maintaining these references in the lead, please make them. Feel free to revert any edits I make. But if you do, that is clearly an acknowledgement that thre is a NPOV dispute here. Please leave the tags on until this issue is resolved. --soulscanner (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - I've added a reference to the Canadian encyclopedia that summarizes French Quebec's quest for more provincial autonomy. This is a more appropriate references as it supplies more context than a link to a source that provides absolutely no historical or political context for a very broad subject. --soulscanner (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How can this be a good-faith dispute when you appear to have previously challenged the material, then supported it with references, and now (confusingly, even perhaps hypocritically) challenge it again? You have not made a convincing argument that is any different now than the one you made before. A consensus, arguably, has clearly supported keeping the material since you supported its original addition way back when, and you are not acting under any sort of consensus now.

Thus, it is reasonable to wait a short period of time (say, a week) to garner additional input. If no one else weighs in supporting your position, that will be sufficient cause to remove the tags you have placed and perhaps said edits. As well, I will consider reporting your behaviour to administrators. That does not mean there is a NPOV dispute, but a challenge to your apparent abuse of privilege. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bosonic dressing, Soulscanner does not appear to have any reason to challenge the consensus version, at least he has not provided any this far. And please don't talk about "French Quebec's quest", Quebec is Quebec and the Quebec parties and governement represent all people in Quebec regardless of language.JdeJ (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've explained this.

• The situation has changed since then. These motions are no longer newsworthy as they were a year ago. As such, they are inherently POV and introduce a strong nationalist bias to the lead.
• The wording has been changed several times. It is no longer the consensus version agreed to.
• It has been challenged several times as biased by numerous editors.

Please give some argument why these these motions continue to be more noteworthy than other items in the news, say, than the "reasonable accommodation debate", which resulted in a long commission examining the issue, or the Clarity Act, which is the precursor to these motions. They are no longer in the news, not legally binding, and have no historical significance. The lead needs to balanced if politically contentious claims by politicized parties are to be included. Again, I ask you to address these valid concerns.

Do you accept this as a good faith dispute? --soulscanner (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. Oy.

"...In 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Québécois as a nation within a united Canada." ..."

What is,

(i). factually incorrect about this?

(ii). somehow "un-clear" and "misleading" about this?

Well ...?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. That's why it belongs in the politics or history section. What is significant enough about this compared to other historical events that puts it above other events not mentioned in the lead? --soulscanner (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Per above, you have not yet made a salient case, nor have you garnered a consensus in support of your viewpoint to overturn the prior consensus regarding this content. Two editors in the least disagree with you. Please use the talk page and garner support here first, before you again make edits and add tags which may be reverted. Thank you. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please adress the concerns that I've made. I already know you dispute my claims, but I do not know why. Is this a good faith dispute between editors? --soulscanner (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered them; in summary:

• (1) it is important to succinctly note in the introduction the quest for greater autonomy sought by the provincial parties, whether within the scope of Canadian federalism or as an independent state, both of which resonate throughout much of recent Quebec history.
• (2) it is important to succinctly note the 'Québécois nation' motion (not 'Quebec motion') in the introduction, as it provides comparison to other notions in the lead regarding Quebec as a province, Canada as a federation, etc. This is, in fact, tied into (1).
• (3) given your flip-flopping and apparently hypocritical editing regarding this, I question your motives, so -- no -- I do not believe this is a good-faith dispute on your part.

You must garner more support before adding questionable tags. I will await other editorial comments before doing so further. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I ended up here as a result of a question by GoodDay on another article. I am however confused. If the Canadian Parliament passes a motion in 2006 how can it be POV not to mention it, unless another resolution at the same level has replaced it? OK the tag should not just be reverted and there is no requirement to gain a consensus to place a tag. However a speedy resolution of the issue is in the interests of the article itself. I would have though there was a prima facie case for an early reference to the various independence movements --Snowded TALK 11:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes hop over here to this article to see what new war is going on, and this one is very, very shaky. The tags are being used improperly- you cannot say that an absolute fact is POV. If I added that there was a sovereignty vote, is that POV? No, it is not, and neither is this. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the other users, the POV-tag added by Soulscanner is not based on anything and can be removed. POV-tags should not be misused or be used for WP:IDONTLIKEIT-purposes.JdeJ (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. OK, I'm confused about exactly where some people want to put exactly what. However, I agree that there are some POV related issues here. The Québécois nation motion relates very complexly with the history of the sovereignty movement (including related legislation like the Clarity Act, as well as other attempts and visions to recognize Quebec's differences/place in the federation), the recent attempts by the new Conservative Party to make inroads into Quebec, and in my opinion a discussion of what Québécois means. (Are we referring to residents of the province, people who speak Quebec French, people who are part of the Quebec cultural sphere, and/or people of Québécois blood? As none of those groups are entirely the same.) The issue is that if the above fact is presented out of context, it can easily be spun to create a POV problem. Presenting it in favour of other issues, in itself could be considered an attempt to artificially inflate the issues importance beyond its now largely forgotten status. That said, the nation issue is very important, and should be included in the Canada article, as well elsewhere, within a context that explains the importance and relevance. While I fully support a mention of the seeking of greater autonomy by several provinces/regions, as well as the already extraordinary level of power the provinces have in some areas, (Provincial constitutional vetoes? Inter-provincial trade barriers? Is this a country or a military treaty?) if we are going into the detail required for the motion to be relevant as it is no longer current news, then the discussion may be too long for a lead. naturalnumber (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just it: are these facts presented out of context? If anything, IMO, they may have been when consensually included at almost the article beginning months ago. Arguably, they are not now out of context: the 'Québécois nation' notion segues directly from talk of Quebec nationalism in the 4th paragraph of the introduction and, by extension, prior mention of the province's unique (and therefore significant) status regarding law, culture, etc. (statut particulier). Just because an item is 'no longer in the news' does not diminish its significance or noteworthiness in an encyclopedic treatment of Quebec and related nationalism: the last referendum was, after all, thirteen years ago -- this subjectiveness has already been pointed out above.

The 'nationalism' paragraph may benefit from having more detail added to it, yet being concise, but it won't benefit by pruning it of significant, verifiable information. As in the 'Canada' article introduction, the addition of a concise history paragraph may be of benefit: I believe that would provide added context too. Well-placed links to topics also provide this: the link to 'Québécois', for example, enables greater understanding, so this needn't be explained additionally. Of course, the previous two paragraphs can probably be pruned somewhat. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable information can be moved down to the history or politics section; I'm not asking that they be deleted; I'm questioning whether putting them the lead of the article, as the issue of "Quebec nationhood" and related motions are pushed almost exclusively by hard-line sovereignists, and generally avoided by federalists. The provincial motion on the subject was forwarded by the PQ, and the federal one was initiated by the Bloc as a way of promoting sovereignty. The Bloc continues to push the issue to legitimize possible future declarations of independence in the international sphere. Placing it here so prominently in the lead plays to their agenda. It is similar to putting a summary of the October Crisis and the FLQ in the lead to discredit sovereignists in that it seeks to promote the agenda of one political view over another. It needs to be mentioned that these motions are initiated and promoted by sovereignists.

There are many, many verifiable facts that can be added on Quebec nationalism. We can add information on the FLQ, sovereignist parties, language laws, the Constitution Act, Meech Lake, the Clarity Act, the Michaud affair (also involving a unanimous motion by the Natioanal Assembly), the reasonable accommadation debate, Quebec's jurisdiction over immigration, etc. But the only truly neutral summary can be made by

• 1. Stating that all provincial political parties see more provicnial autonomy
• 2. Sovereignists do it through referendums (1980,1995)
• 3. Federalists do it through constitutional negotiations and administrative arrangements with the federal government

Frankly, the symbolic motions are just not at the level of Meech Lake and the Referendums in terms of noteworthiness. --soulscanner (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This fairly recent motion epitomizes the statut particulier of Quebec in Canada (a notion which resonates throughout much of Quebec history) in ways that other historical events haven't done. As well, how does including this motion in the introduction -- something that you previously supported doing -- cater to 'their' agenda? The motion was supported by all the political parties in the Commons, including federalists, which perhaps is added reason for its inclusion in the introduction.

Many of the other topics you've noted, indeed, are significant. There are a number of ways to deal with this: integrate them into a concise history paragraph, as proposed, is my choice. But removing the 'Québécois motion' notion and, in effect, deprecating this one in favour of others? Not at this time. Until a renewed consensus trumps the prior one, the choice is clear.

In addition, as you see fit to continue to add tags with disregard for the apparent consensus herein indicating otherwise (without edit summary, no less, though that makes no difference), you will be reverted on this point until you do. (Also note that this was noted as permissible at the very Wikiquette alert you instigated, which has since been dismissed.) I will comment hereafter as needed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Meech Lake and "distinct society", administrative arrangement in immigration, language laws, Quebec's civil law, and fracnophone majority epitomize Quebec's "particular status" far more concretely and permanently than a symbolic motion that no one talks about anymore except the Bloc. The motion was supported by all parties because they were railroaded into it by the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois, who advanced the motion; it is a sovereignist motion. They did this to embarrass and cause dissent in the federalist political parties. Advancing it here has the exact same objective.

Moving the passage does not lower it below the other facts. It makes it equal to others. It is putting it in the lead that implies it is more important and significant than the unmentioned events.

As for the tags, I recommend you read the guidelines. I'm following them. All you need to post them is for there to be a dispute about the subject, and there has been one here for several days. Readers should be aware of it. --soulscanner (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are of course entitled to your opinions; I've suggested a solution above. A read of your commentary above (e.g., railroaded, etc.) indicates a strong bias which gives even more food for thought regarding your motives. In any event, you don't appear to be approaching this constructively, either by providing salient suggestions on the talk page or through general attitude.

I am well aware of the guidelines, and it is questionable if you -- given your flip-flopping and the above -- are following them, particularly in spirit: a consensus on this talk page does not support your viewpoint, and the tags will be dealt with unless that changes. Moreover, since you have appeared to initiated questionable, drawn-out disputes elsewhere, which a glance at 'Canada' will reveal, for example, your behaviour could stand for some (added) administrative scrutiny. That's all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise is in order? I (now) agree that the nation motion should probably be left in the intro for the Quebec article, but only with added context. Something like:

Nationalism plays a large role in the politics of Quebec, and all three major provincial political parties have sought greater autonomy for Quebec and recognition of its unique status. From 1963 to 1970, a terrorist group that became known as the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) launched a decade of bombings, robberies and attacks directed primarily at English institutions, resulting in at least five deaths and culminating in events referred to as the October Crisis and the invoking of the War Measures Act. Referendums on independence were held in 1980 and 1995 by sovereigntist governments. In 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Québécois as a nation within a united Canada."

is a start. However, there should likely be a mention on internal laws/policies that are relevant, such as language laws, and immigration policy etc. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the specifics and a better talent for prose then myself should write it though. :)

Also, if I am correct in understanding that there is a wish to add the nation motion to the Canada intro, I disagree entirely. While I support a mention of the regionalist/separatist forces in the country, there are others besides the PQ/Bloc, and the nation motion factors in fairly low on the list of importance. Do we start mentioning special autonomies for band councils too? naturalnumber (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great start, and is what I had in mind! I'd be bold and place it in the article, or we can work on it some more on the talk page (e.g., roots of Quebec nationalism in Quiet Revolution) to incorporate more regarding internal law etc. I'll look at this shortly. I also (strongly) disagree, as you, that the 'nation' motion should be added to the Canada intro for similar reasons. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello soulscanner.

Whether you like it or not, the Quebecois Nation Motion was passed by the Parliament of Canada. It is a noteworthy FACT, and belongs where it presently placed in the article. I support Bosonic dressing (talk) in keeping the paragraph right where it is.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's open to Soulscanner to question whether these statements, by their inclusion in the lead, are giving undue weight to a particular point of view. In principle at least, it's an objection that is possible. I do not actually feel strongly enough about it one way or the other to take a position on the matter. However, I do want to say that it is clear to me that the consensus here for inclusion of the material is strong enough that the dispute tags should not be there. Joeldl (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I came from the community portal and don't know where to chime in, so I will offer my thought here. I think that Quebec and nationalism, separatism, le parte Quebecois is significant but should not be in the lead of an article about the province. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Soulscanner, What is the beef?

This paragraph below seems to be complete and accurate,

Nationalism plays a large role in the politics of Quebec, and all three major provincial political parties have sought greater autonomy for Quebec and recognition of its unique status. Sovereigntist governments have held referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995. In 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Québécois as a nation within a united Canada."

What EXACTLY is your problem with it eh ...?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Quebecois nation motion is not as noteworthy as Meech Lake, the October Crisis, and many other more important events related to Quebec nationalism. Including reference to Bloc and Parti Quebecois initiated motions pushes a sovereignist POV. Federalists in Quebec focus on other issues. --soulscanner (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello soulscanner.

I personally disagree with the passing of the Quebecois Nation Motion by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada. Nevertheless, the Parliament of Canada did pass the Motion. In my, personal lay-mans opinion, the passing of motion is as significant as the Quebec Referendum of 1980, and the Quebec Referendum of 1995.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this has anything to do with support for the motion or not. I'm currently a federalist (though if we get much more of this western style conservative stuff, I'll switch to an eastern separatist) who supports increased autonomy for the provinces and regions within them in contexts that are relevant to them. I personally have yet to decide if the motion in question has advanced or set back this political viewpoint. I still see at least some of soulscanner point. The nation motion is not as important as the October crisis, for example. naturalnumber (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Values and Fundamentals of Quebec Society

The removal of that section struck me as somewhat arbitrary. It may be true that similar sections are not found in other articles but that in itself doesn't mean that the content should be removed. It appears to be well-written. Does it add value to the article? --Big_iron (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all arbitrary. The notions in this section are already reflected in the article text: one can mention the civil code and relevant charters only so many times. As well, the section is rather inconsistent with other provincial articles. Of course, some of the content may be better placed within other sections of the article, or can complement content already there. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No they can't, and no it isn't unless you're planning on editing it all in yourself. It's not a particularly big section, nor is much of the content elsewhere in the article. Good info is better than no info. Elm-39 - T/C 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No other provincial (or even national) article has even a remotely similar section, so it is rather misplaced. But, I'm unsurprised by what some editors will accept as encyclopedic -- there's no accounting for taste. Actually, if you read the article, the various notions are mentioned any number of times. I may just integrate the sourced content with the rest of the article, and that section will be gone before not long. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Quebecer" vs. "Quebecker"

I was wondering which spelling is historically most prevalent. The latter seems the most logical and fitting with predominant English spelling conventions. Wouldn't "Quebecer", in almost any other instance, be pronounced as "kuh-bee-ser"? It seems, however, that this form is more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csladic (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastern/Central Canada and undue weight

User:Bosonic dressing took out the mention of Central Canada from the introduction claiming undue weight of that grouping, but I feel that only mentioning Eastern Canada is a far greater problem of undue weight. Of all the academic journals that I have read about the history, politics, and sociology of Canada, as well of the news from anywhere other than Western Canada, I see the grouping of Ontario and Quebec as Central Canada far more often than I ever see Quebec and Ontario grouped with the Maritime provinces and Newfoundland. Only in some geography texts have I seen the later grouping meaningfully used with any frequency. Searching for the term "Central Canada" in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Canadian Studies, or the Canadian Journal of Sociology will yield numerous peer-reviewed academic journals that discuss Central Canada as a political, historical, and sociological unit. Almost none of these articles bother explaining the term, indicating that they see it as common usage. If you do the same search with "Eastern Canada", you will find a comparable number of articles, but many of them, possibly more than half, refer to Eastern Canada as only being the Maritimes and Newfoundland, implying that the term "Eastern Canada" as is being used here is both less common and ambiguous. I'm putting back the Central Canada line in the intro, though I would advise taking out the Eastern Canada part for being misleading about the history, politics, and sociology of Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying the inclusion of Quebec in Central Canada or its significance, but its inclusion in the wider region of Eastern Canada (which is comprised of Central Canada and Atlantic Canada) is far more prevalent.[1] -- Encyclopaedia Britannica, the New Oxford Dictionary of English, and Merriam-Webster note that the province is unambiguously in Eastern Canada (initial lower case of not). Even a simple Google search reveals a to 5+:1 preponderance of the latter, wider region (both solely and searching with 'Quebec'), and both for webpages in Canada and not. As well, the note in the lead and mention in the 'Geography' section of it also being in Central Canada are more than adequate. The suggested removal of Quebec 'misleadingly' being in Eastern Canada not only flies in the face of an obvious (particularly geographic) truism but numerous citations and won't be tolerated in any stripe.

Yet, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary notes that Quebec is in 'east central Canada', which may be an acceptable compromise (perhaps with hyphen), but there's no reason for 'and' and wordiness. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, along with many or most of your examples, are only talking about physical location and not how people actually see the country grouped. As for the Google search, even if the 5:1 ratio is true, I still think that it is dangerous to use a term that is used in a completely different way by 20% of the population. For the benefit of someone who knows nothing about Canada, it is useful to say where the province is physically located, but adding a link to the Ontario-Quebec-Maratimes-Newfoundland grouping in the lead is giving that grouping undue weight. People in the Atlantic provinces certainly wouldn't think of Quebec as part of the East, and people in Central Canada wouldn't group themselves with each other and the Atlantic provinces more so than with the West. This large grouping of Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and Newfoundland seems to be a very Western Canada POV. I would rather see the word "east" unlinked. Also, saying "eastern-central" makes it look like you are just explaining the location in more detail rather than explaining the province's place in the country. I think the prominence of Central Canada in history politics should be noted in its own sentence somewhere in the lead, along the lines of "Along with Ontario, Quebec was part of the Province of Canada prior to Confederation, and today forms part of Central Canada, which has more than half of Canada's population and thus holds a substantial amount of political power federally." --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Arctic Gnome has said. Grouping all eastern provinces together is a kind of western POV, just as grouping all western provinces is more an eastern POV (people in Saskatchewan and British Columbia wouldn't consider themselves to be similar, at least I wouldn't). We can't deny the importance of Quebec and Ontario as the first settled ares of Canada (Quebec being first). It's an important, distinct grouping, especially because of the fact their large population gives Central Canada much of the political power in Canada (Ontario and Quebec alone hold a majority in the House, and pretty close to one in the Senate). -Royalguard11(T) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: 'Eastern Canada' far outnumbers 'Central Canada' in online prevalence (both in reference to Quebec and not), yet explicitly noting that the province is also in the wider region in this article's lead is placing undue weight on that? Sorry: that argument doesn't fly. Policy is quite clear to not place undue weight on relatively less common notions. I can't really validate (nor do I wish to) the various suppositions above about how residents may self-identify (or not): that's what citations do. As well, the argument that this is a 'Western Canada' POV is hogwash: I was born and raised in the Big Smoke, and only need to look at a map to verify where I am. The inclusion of 'east-central Canada' in the lead is an equitable compromise, particularly given other sources above which indicate only the former, but anything less will not do. If there's a desire to emphasize Quebec's 'place' in Central Canada, given its socioeconomic and political influence, feel free to propose on the talk page; I believe this should probably be noted later in the lead, as part of a brief recounting of the province's history or economy (last paragraph). I'm open to suggestions. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The term may occur frequently, but that does not mean that it is meaningful outside of simple definitions. The problem with the term "eastern-central" and with your Google search is the lack of context and the implication that the terms have a wider significance than they really do. When talking about purely physical and natural geography it is perfectly valid to say that Quebec is in eastern Canada, and that is likely what most of your links are doing. However, by linking the term in the first line you are giving the term undue weight by implying that the Ontario-Quebec-Maritimes-Newfoundland grouping is an important part of Quebec's identity, which it is not. Quebec politics and culture are not more connected to Nova Scotia or Newfoundland than they are to Manitoba, yet it is grouped with them via a link in the very first line. Outside of its location on a globe, the only grouping that I see as being warranted of inclusion in the lead is the Ontario-Quebec grouping because of their joint history as the Province of Canada and because of their combined political influence. I recommend either de-linking the word "east-central" or linking it to Regions of Canada. I further suggest that we add some mention of the Province of Canada similar to my example: "Along with Ontario, Quebec was part of the Province of Canada prior to Confederation, and today the two provinces contain more than half of Canada's population and thus hold a substantial amount of political power federally." --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The context is self-evident. You seem to be hyperinflating your case, opinionating excessively, while providing little to back it up. You would have us believe that the geographic sense is not as significant as the sociopolitical sense, which makes little sense. There is also hypocrisy in your proposal, given your prior edits that included both regions.[2] Given clear citations corroborating the current lead, the inclusion and linking of 'east-central Canada' (which has not demonstrated to be inequitable) shall remain. Feel free to add your suggested text later in the introduction or on the talk page. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How does it "make little sense" that the sociopolitical grouping that actually affects people's lives should be prioritized over the mere geographic location? It's the opposite that makes little sense. Furthermore, the edit that you linked was not hypocritical given that the previous version only contained the insufficient geographic definition. The edit was an improvement, albeit it did not result in the ideal version of the page. In any case, we could debate the merits of each grouping indefinitely, so I'll concede that the version containing both is probably an adequate compromise. However, I would prefer the two terms to be separated with the word "and" rather than a hyphen since the two terms are not measuring quite the same type of grouping, and the hyphen implies that Quebec is halfway between the two rather than wholly in both. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it makes little sense for reasons cited above, both in terms of where the province actually is and various citations which state that. Actually, throughout, you saw fit to remove the explanatory footer notes about the duality of Quebec's location. Nonetheless, I won't belabour that. (Also note that I later added a bit of detail at the beginning of the 'Geography' section about this, so I'm not insensitive to your viewpoint.)

Thanks for conciliating; however, I would prefer that the two directions NOT be separated by 'and' or additional wordiness: if you can provide a reputable citation which renders similarly, I might change my mind. Otherwise, the current version is fine; the rendition as found in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is also fine ('east central Canada'; without the hyphen) -- SSDD. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents, I like "Eastern Canada". It is geographically obvious, and to a first time reader, the term "central-Canada", while important, requires a full blown explanation of the social, historical and political context in order for it to make sense to the first time reader. "East-central Canada" seems one of those awkward compromises that satisfies no one. On the other hand, considering we're talking about how Quebec fits into Canada, that somehow seems appropriate ...  :-) --soulscanner (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Provinces and territories of Canada vs. Category:Quebec

Category:Quebec is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Population centers

It is written that Lachute (pop 11832) is the core city of Laurentides administrative region but actually it is Mont-Laurier (pop 13405). --96.21.126.179 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Québec is a Nation

Québec is a Nation and I think it should be noticed. It is official, it should be at the beginning.

It should be write Québec is a Nation and a province in east-central Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbox17 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061122/harper_quebec_061122/20061122?hub=TopStories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbox17 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is official that the Québécois constitute a "nation," but I think the meaning of the word "nation" in English could be misleading and confusing if we state it that way in the article. Most people, I think, would take it to mean that it is an independent state, or at least that it is a "country" like England or Scotland. That's not true, so you'd have to rethink the word choice. JeanJPoirier (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see quebec is a nation even if it's mesleading some people than no mention at all. It's an information everyone should get. It's true that a lot a quebecker feel more quebecker than they feel canadian. It reflect reality. And the same word exist in french and it's doesn't mean an independant country. Neither in english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.34.170 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 22 September 2009

Readers should not be misled, the introduction points out already that Canada recognises the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, that should be enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough and that's not the point. Canada did recognise that the québécois are a nation and it's worth mention. But most quebecers recognise this since ever. They don't feel like canadian in the ROC. That worth mention like this is already in French.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 September 2009

I hate to imagine what the French article on this says, however this is the English wikipedia and agreement is needed before adding that to the first sentence. The intro already points out the Canadian government recognizes the people as a nation within a united Canada. thats enough BritishWatcher (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since you're probably not able to read french you can't know. I invite you to read the definition of a nation in english. That's what quebec is. And I don't care if federal canadian gouv recognise it or not. You can remove this part. The important part is quebec is a nation. That's the true and I want to mention it.

It's only opinion unless you can provide reliable sources for the information. It can't be added without that. A consensus also needs to be reached on this before the change is made. Wperdue (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Require a reliable source ???? You're joking right. The canadian gouv recognise it, the quebec gouv have done the same since ever. Do you want their e-mail adress ??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 September 2009

According to the article it recognizes the québécois as a nation, not Quebec which is slightly different. Could you also please sign your posts with the 4 ~s, or just clicking the button underneath the text box where it says sign your posts on talk pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree, there is not a distinction. By extend Quebec (where quebecers are living) is a nation (not an independant one thought).

If you want a source you can always go there http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/portrait/culture/?lang=en. and read again what a nation is. Again this is just the true. You know it each time you're crossing the border. Who could not recognise it ?

nothing on that page mentions Quebec being a nation. Anyway, please get agreement here before adding that to the introduction. This has probably been gone over in the past so it may be worth checking the archives. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have find my reliable source. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8082 I have a question for you all. Do you have any arguments that would make Quebec not a nation ? I'd really like to hear them. If not, could you please let it as quebec is a nation. It could really help if you were able to read french. For sure one version must change....Mobifr (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Mobifr (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have check the archives but still totally disagree... http://www.quebecpolitique.com/2006/11/nation-quebecoise-sondage-leger-marketing/ That's an other source for you. Most québecers say they should be recognise as a nation. That's all you really need to know after all. Sorry it's in french.

That source is not good enough, but its not really about the source for me, you need to get agreement before adding that to the introduction in such a way. Please give it a 24 hours and see if others comment, if nobody else disagrees in that time then you can re add it and i wont revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So let's just wait someone else revert it...you need a consensus about what again. I hope that you're understand that as a quebécois you're killing me. Someone who could argue Quebec is not a nation just doesn't know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 September 2009

You must realise that this has been discussed ad nauseum previously. Check out the archives. The arguments has determined the consensus version that appears now. The problems are that the resolution recognising the nation was both purposely vague and precise, the resolution refers to the people and not the province, and the word "nation" has built in connotation of an independent state in English, which is misleading. It was decided to use the precise phrase used in the Parliament of Canada's motion to "recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada". DoubleBlue (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I can't agree to that. Nation means something. Check out the definition for god sake. What Harper said is not enough. Quebec is a nation because we quebecers say it is. You all know what I mean, don't you ??? If you want to talk about mislead that's what you're doing right now. You're not expriming quebec's reality when you're doing this.... Quebec is a nation, not a country, a nation with is own identity. You can't reduce that with some word of harper witch is well know across Canada for is position against Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you have an agenda here to promote a point-of-view. Well, do so on here on the talk page and convince us you are correct; not on the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And just so you all know Words means something like it or not. It's not up to all of you to undo me just because you think people could understand them not exacly the way YOU want to. When I am saiying Quebec is a nation this is true and worth mentionning. If you want we can make a link for the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 September 2009

Please just let it go. I can agree with you more, but it's not worth keepin' on this track. Seek the good faith in their remarks and by all means time will pervert them. Know the underlying message of George Orwell's novel 1984, which created the story of Big Brother. It might help you on understanding their way of thinking and then, on working on Quebec's will to sovereignty more efficiently. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebec is not a nation. The Quebecois (francophone Quebecers) are a nation. The former is a Canadian province, the latter is a group of people within that province. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are totally right. But you might want to read further in the details provided. You might understand that Harper, and his government, legally deceived himself with the ambiguity he created when using this term "Quebecois". Just remember that both English and French are constitutionally equal before the law. Therefore, the non-ambiguous term, including contextually, as force of law over the other one when there's ambiguity. Harper could have named that group of people using the language of its majority; therefore, omitting its literal meaning. While in French, its meaning solely refers to the group of people within that province. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. When I am saying quebecois I don't mean only those who speak french. Quebecois who doesn'tspeak french doesn't have the same identity than in the ROC (rest of canada). I am speaking of everybody who are living in quebec. I have an other question for you. Algéria was a nation before independance ???

Anyway, I want to put in the introduction that quebec did not sign the canadian constitution and there is a strong identity, not just about the language. Because for now, Harper could have write this itself. It's not neutral.

It's really hard to defend this issue when it's not your mothertongue. Thanks for understanding

Mobifr (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Though Quebec didn't sign the 1982 Constitution Act, the province still must abide by it. Having said that, I've no problem with having its lack of signing mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Canadian Constitution does not elevate any of the provinces to the status of a nation. Unlike the situation with Scotland, Canada started out as a mostly Francophone conquest of Britain, with the other provinces added onto what eventually comes to be called Canada. Abductive (reasoning) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive no feelings on if a sentence about that should stay or go, but could it be reworded slightly so it makes more sense please. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebec is not like an other province but with a different language. Introduction MUST reflect this. Mobifr (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebec is exactly like the other provinces except the different language. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You've just said that you don't know anything about us. Same to me.Mobifr (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Legally, I see no distinction made between the provinces. Obviously the province of Quebec is culturally quite different. Abductive (reasoning) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Still must abide by it? Where do you get sources from? You've lost all of your objectivity. Apparently you know nothing about law because the 1982 Constitutional Act is still a judicial debate in front of courts. The sole constitutional act Quebec abides by is that which were signed in 1867. Should you find a case, Quebec Charter of Human rights and Freedoms as legal force over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quebec is still part of a confederation rather than a federation (unlike the other provinces), Quebec is the only province that has income tax abatement from the federal government, Quebec is the only province that has an agreement with the federal government over immigration, Quebec is the sole province that possess embassies and consulates in other countries, etc. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The Supreme Court Patriation Reference of 1981 found that, though there was no written requirement for provincial agreement, they felt that some ungiven number of provincial consents would be needed for constitutional amendments. The Constitution Act of 1982 was most definitely given Royal Assent and is law throughout the land. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?, their own ambassadors & consuls? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You got it! With a Quebec Minister of International Relations and its own government offices abroad, that is in Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, US, UK, etc. Besides many agreements and cooperation projects with many other countries, such as Argentina, Egypt, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, etc. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So do other provinces. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a lie? Check on the provincial government websites, and no such departments exist. Provincial governments other than Quebec only rely on the federal DFAIT, except for Alberta, which also claim some independence from Canada. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ontariocanada.com/ontcan/1miti/ DoubleBlue (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Many US states also have these trade-promoting outfits. They are not a sign of national status for that state. Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They might not have national status, but this is another country with another constitution. Scotland is part of the U.K., though it has national status. Quebec National Assembly is called the NATIONAL Assembly and so it is called by Canada, so it has national status. Other examples of organizations, policies and events qualified to be Quebec national : Quebec National Day, National Order of Québec, The National Archives of Quebec, Quebec National Public Health Institute, Quebec National Parks, Quebec National Museum of Fine Arts, Quebec's National Civil Protection Plan, Quebec National Police School, etc. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

These are good points, but doesn't the fact that seccession-minded people have named these things give one pause? Only people who don't have something try to claim it with words. Scotland was free once; French Canada was always a colony, first of the French and then the British, until the de facto independence of Canada the country in 1867. Since Quebec went along with−that is, didn't reject−all the changes since then, including the 1982 Constitution Act, it is not a nation. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is your own opinion and totally groundless. Next time we have a discussion, let's talk about good faith... I have no more time to spend for this discussion, because whatever you may think, when Quebec declares independence, Canada shall have no other choices than to accept it, and THAT is a Supreme Court rule : Reference re Secession of Quebec. So, meanwhile, you may live in your own world and believe whatever you want because as part of the common law, Quebec has nothing to abide by but whatever it will. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be my opinion, but it is not totally groundless. I know that the English Canadians mistreated the French Canadians for decades, but the current world climate is tending towards postnationalism. Quebec and the rump Canada would be weaker, especially in the face of world competitors such as China, and the bankers and businessmen who really run the show will not allow the breakup of Canada. Abductive (reasoning) 06:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is still your own opinion and point of view. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Want to know why ? because Quebec isn't just a normal province. There is a great deal about autonomy. And to me it's important to show Quebec reality in the lead....174.91.228.232 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if I may give you an advice : What's worse than being left into ignorance? What's worse than the doublethink, the thoughtcrime and the newspeak, altogether? These are all concepts developped by George Orwell's novel 1984. In a supposedly free country, one may find all the characteristics of a totalitarian regime. Make analogies and comparisons. What is characteristic of La Survivance, from the Patriots genocide to the Quiet Revolution, which made Quebec turn out to be evermore stronger than before? Whatever you may say, as shrewd as it may be, know their Achilles' heel... --24.200.205.218 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I like how the discussion page on the French version of the article shows basically no signs of debate on this issue. Clearly, there is a consensus among Quebeckers that Québec is a nation. Also, a Québécois is any citizen of Québec, not just francophones.

These many industries have all contributed to helping Quebecbecome...

The opening paragraph siting ref note 14 states "helping Quebec **become**" however Quebec was the centre of Canadian economic activity ahead of Ontario until the shift in the 50ies and 60ies from Montreal to Toronto (accelarated leading up to the first referendum).

^ Veltman, Calvin (1996). "Post-imperial English". Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 206. http://books.google.ca/books?id=SIu244rlVu8C&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=montreal+decline+opening+seaway&source=bl&ots=FTZ8ymB7mQ&sig=TKsNKbQti3h8McRxayAJN6pWflI&hl=en&ei=v_TPSemxCJ_aswPYk7WhAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA206,M1. Retrieved 2009-03-29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.252 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Information in footnotes

Is there a way to differentiate between reference footnotes and footnotes with additional information? The two notes in the lead (one about the spelling and one about Central Canada) both have important information, but I think the vast majority of readers will ignore them because they look like citations. I've seen articles that use numbers for citations and letters for footnotes, could that work here? If that's not possible, we may want to find a place in the article to put those footnotes in the regular prose. The line about central Canada is briefly mentioned in the geography section (albeit in parenthesis, it could be expanded). The part about the spelling could be included in the etymology section. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is a question for the Village Pump or Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, I think. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Language

I changed the % of french speaking people from 80.9% to 79% given the 2006 census (see http://stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/referenc/pdf2009/QCM2009_ang.pdf). Another note, a few researchers I know here in Quebec as well as provincial government bodies use L'institut de la statistique du Québec for stats as opposed to Stats Can as it may offer more accurate data on the Province.Isacyr (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Should you know more about Quebec politics, you might be surprised how one single phrase, seemingly harmless, may in fact carry on an outbreak of nationalism. --24.200.205.218 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I fell it too and can't agree more 132.211.94.122 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Symbolic" motion

Could someone please find a source which calls the motion "symbolic" indeed? Without it, this qualifier looks like either OR or worse, a weasel word. We don't want the readers to think the editors have decreed between themselves that the motion is "symbolic". What do you say?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC) The prime minister of Canada clearly said that Québec is a Nation within Canada. A Federation can be composed of different nations. My contributions are neutral and sourced. What symbolic stand for ?

Latinamerican and Arab as visible minorities?

The Canadian Census can make a distinction: Christian Arabs like a great part of the Lebanese are not a visible minority (only Muslim Lebanese are); white Latinamericans are not a visible minority (only mestizo, indian and black Latins)--88.24.240.254 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Québec Nation

Québec is a province of Canada but it is also a recognized nation. You must have a neutral point of view, this is a important fact. The page talk about the recognition motion but it is not written that Québec is a Nation. NPOV say we must have reliable sources. Here I put this reference on the article. The prime minister of Canada clearly said that Québec is a Nation within Canada. A Federation can be composed of different nations. My contributions are neutral and sourced. Thank you. FLN05 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (EST)

I also changed the color of the map, it is the same color as Québec flag and coat of arms. FLN05 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (EST)

My version... Québec is a province and a nation(1) in east-central Canada. FLN05 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Your opinion is a highly controversial one, and similar proposals have been extensively discussed on this page. Please read through the talk page archives and review those discussions, and do not change the article without reaching a consensus here first. As for the map colour, it reflects a standardized colour used in all provincial and territorial maps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not my opinion, it is a fact. I don't see why it is controversial it had been recognized by the federal government of Canada. This page is clearly pro-federalist and pro-english, I can respect that for the English, it is the English version. But this article talk about the English-speaking minority before saying Quebecers form a nation within Canada. It only talk about the motion. At least you could write... FLN05 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Quebec (English pronunciation: /kwɨˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/; French Québec [kebɛk] is a province in east-central Canada. It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking identity and the only one whose sole official language is French. Because of their distinct culture and language Quebecers form a nation within Canada.

Why change the color of the map when all the others are the same? It isn't red, it is a burnt orange; perfect for a neutral color that no one can get a hidden meaning from. PLEASE don't change it back again without consensus... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this color for the map represent Québec better. This is not a personal opinion, Québec flag and coat of arms are the same color. Can I ask you why you don't want the color to be just like the flag and the coat of arms? A hidden meaning from? This is the Color of Québec Flag! FLN05 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I just want to wish FLN05 good luck. I've tried but queen's power is apparently strong.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.31.139 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the change made by FLN05 and I don't see any goods arguments against in the archive. We should have the same version as in french where most quebecers made a consensus. It's not up to the ROC to tell us what quebec is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.33.189 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Ckatz is using his admin power in a distructive way. My opinion and most quebecers opinion is that Quebec is a nation before being a province within Canada. Ckatz is only presenting the federalist way to see Quebec. Harper way to be correct which is Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. But guess what I am a quebecer but I am NOT canadian. Wikipedia should reflect this in the LEAD. Please read the french version....

That's what I said to Ckatz on his discussion page but I did not get any answer and thanks to him for the ads in front of my register profile. I would like to know why you aren't letting peoples presenting QUEBEC in the quebecers ways also as is it in french. A lots of quebecers believe that quebec is a nation before being a Canadian province (a country witch is not more familiar to me than the US-same to me). We should be able to see such a fact in a so call neutral article. As you know the amount of people trying to let know the truth should convince you that maybe you are wrong acting this way. You're just using your admin power in a political agenda and it's just not fair.--Mobifr (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask for mediation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.30.218 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the lead and has a whole section to itself (3.12). You already have what you're asking for, so I don't see what you expect a mediator to rule on. If you want something more, tell us what it is that you want to change. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbolic Québécois nation motion?

Can anyone prove that the motion on the recognition of the Quebecois nation is only symbolic? It must be written motion. Until proven otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_nation_motion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.185.128 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular support: A survey of 1,500 Canadians by Leger Marketing for the Association of Canadian studies in November, 2006 showed that Canadians were deeply divided on this issue. When asked if Quebecers are a nation, only 48 per cent of Canadians agreed, 47 per cent disagreed, with 33 per cent strongly disagreeing; 78 per cent of French-speaking Quebecers agreed that Quebecers are a nation, next to 38 per cent of English-speakers. As well, 78 per cent of 1,000 Quebecers polled thought that Quebecers should be recognized as a nation.[14] unsigned

So the motion should not be considere only as symbolic.

Please to correct the error based on a personal opinion rather than a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.109.79 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into that argument, but you can't add text to quotes that aren't in the original. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead change for distinct nation

As much as I disagree with the fact that quebec is a nation (personaly, i'm a montrealer, federalist too) Harper said that quebec is a nation. However, he probably said it more to calm people. to get pressure off him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.25.5 (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have supported the revert of certain edits by FLN05, but in this case, Québec does form a distinct nation within Canada itself. I strongly support this change as it is accurate and sourced properly.Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

FLN05 has had his/her editing privileges suspended for a short period because of his disruptive actions. As for the position you've outlined, please refer to this archived discussion and other, earlier ones like it that explain why the lead is worded the way it is. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It may explain what took place in an earlier discussion, but it is a tenent of Wikipedia to present all viewpoints, and the lead should reflect the other side of this debate as it is within the article. The phrase "However, there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means" expresses that the nonbinding motion is not the only POV within Quebec- at least part of the sentence should express the debate. After all, Prime Minister Harper's statement does most certainly solidify my argument. This would be in the spirit of Wikipedia... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an entire paragraph in the lead that discusses Quebecois nationality, and the longest paragraph at that. The opening paragraph should pretty much be a dictionary definition of the topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the lead has too much information to be considered a "dictionary definition" without the inclusion of the POV regarding the "distinct nation"- you are in essence stating part of the story. Based upon the obvious lack of Québecois on Wikipedia to make the case for fairness, this edit will never be able to be sustained. However, someone must speak up and say something- I may lose this debate, but I still believe the lead should represent the entire picture. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead does have a paragraph about Quebecois nationhood. If you feel that the first paragraph of the lead should represent the entire picture, then in addition to a sentence about nationhood, it should also have a sentence about physical geography, a sentence about history, a sentence about economy, and sentence about government. All of those things are mentioned later in the lead, so I don't see a reason for stating them twice by putting them in the opening paragraph. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just gave my opinion, and I won't create another large section of debate over it. When a fact isn't in black and white but in a gray area, it becomes so much more difficult- saying Quebec is generally cold is one thing, but to express the full POV of its role within Canada is quite another. I'll leave the subject alone as of now. :) Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not black and white, I agree, and both sides of the argument have validity. I think the differing opinion is in whether the Quebecois nationality issue is one of the defining features of Quebec or whether it is an issue within of the culture section of the article just as the St. Lawrence is an issue within the geography section. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

. I STRONGLY support a change in the lead to reflect Quebec reality. It's not only a matter of what Harper say. Quebec because of is language,institutions, cultures and so on IS a nation. Only a fool can't see this. Crossing the quebec-ontario border one time should make this clear....--Mobifr (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC) — Mobifr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The nationhood issue is already discussed at the end of the third paragraph of the lead, although I agree that we may want to move it up. But even if we do that, we'll still have to say that the "Quebecois" are a nation and not "Quebec", unless we find a new source. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We haven't sign the damn constitution. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/1982/1982rcs2-793/1982rcs2-793.html. So we aren't a 'normal' province like Ontario neither. We have our own government, our own services, our own culture. Please read the definition of a nation on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation and tell me why you can't call us this way ??? What we aren't is a nation-state or a country because until now quebecers (including English one) chose federal Canada rather than an independent Quebec and francophone Quebecers like the rest of the country we value such things as democracy.... Now, it's not fair to present us as a normal canadian province where peoples speaks french rather than english.--Mobifr (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC) — Mobifr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Quebec's status (although signing the Constitution was merely symbolic and had no legal weight). What I'm saying is that the article already mentions the nationhood issue in the lead. Your version redundantly mentioned it twice in the lead and didn't have a citation for a direct quote. If we are going to move the nationhood issue to the first paragraph of the lead, we have to first agree on wording and then agree on how to re-structure the existing part about nationhood. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's from wikipedia...

A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government.[1] The development and conceptualization of a nation is closely related to the development of modern industrial states and nationalist movements in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,[2] although nationalists would trace nations into the past along uninterrupted lines of historical narrative.

Benedict Anderson argued that nations were "imagined communities" because "the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion", and traced their origins back to vernacular print journalism, which by its very nature was limited with linguistic zones and addressed a common audience.[3] Although "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the political concept of "state" are called nation states.

You can read also Defining nation. Do I need a source for something obvious like this ? Anyways, It's wikipédia policy to not misrepresent the relevant prominence of opposing views witch is what's happening here thanks to ... You all know what I am talking about... There is been a lot of arguing over this... Depending of your political agenda, you are going to present it one way or another. I think it's just more fair to present both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV --Mobifr (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why the nationhood issue is already mentioned in the lead. And your edit does require a citation because it used a direct quote. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think mediation is a great idea because you can continue to play this game for ever and if you don't want to understand what I am saying that Quebec fit precisely to nation definition from Wikipédia I can't force you to. And as always you're going to get me tired to defend the truth in a foreign language and you're gonna have what you want as you did for contributors who came before me. --Mobifr (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. I am not disagreeing with your opinion about Quebec nationhood. I am saying that nationhood is already mentioned in the lead and mentioning it twice in the lead is redundant. I am saying that if you want to add a direct quotation to an article you must provide a source, no matter how true the quotation is. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am glad if you agree... Now, I think the way this article have been write in the most hypocritical way regarding Quebec nationalism. For me the lead is the first paragraph not the fourth one. Everybody knows in Canada that they don't know and often they don't like us in the west, especially harper (Alberta)and that's Harper way to present Quebec, the hypocritical one. If you need a source we could use this one http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061118/dion_quebec_061118?s_name=&no_ads=.... My version would be because of it's specific language, history, culture, institutions, culture and so on... Quebec is also a nation within Canada in the first sentence... And we could make a link to nation definition.... --Mobifr (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Making a blanket accusation of bigotry against all Western Canadians will not help you gain sympathy for your argument. At this point it would probably be helpful to have a specific proposal to discuss. Can you post your specific suggestion for the lead will say? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would propose something like this...

Quebec /kəˈbɛk/ or /kwɪˈbɛk/ (French: Québec [kebɛk] ( listen))[8] is a province in east-central Canada.[9][10] It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population and the only one whose sole official language is French at the provincial level. Quebec is Canada's largest province by area and its second-largest administrative division; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. Because of the language, of the specific culture and the institutions ??? Quebec is also a nation within Canada

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

If someone could help me make this clear but I hope you're getting the idea...--Mobifr (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody is opposing to what I have just said, I am going to do what is right...--Mobifr (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that the information is likely to be challenged, you should probably write it as a cited opinion, starting with something like "Person X has argued that…". Also, we may want to reswrite the third paragraph so that we don't say the same thing twice in the lead. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed over, and over, and over again, and the current version is the result of these extensive discussions. Furthermore, it presents the concept in a far more neutral manner than Mobifr's clearly POV version. (The simple fact that he/she chose to say "I am going to do what is right" speaks to the problem quite clearly.) Given the tremendous difficulties we face with regard to the frequent POV edits to this article (and related sub-articles), any changes clearly needs to reflect a widely held consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mobifr must understand that all assertions that are likely to be controversial must be sourced. It isn't a question of writing what we personally think we know for sure to be true on a subject, it is a question of writing what we (humans) know on some subject through our most reliable scientific/academic sources. Obviously, there is much evidence to support the assertion that Quebecers are a nation, that Quebec is claimed as the national territory of that nation, but you need to find those sources and quote them. Up until now, we have been quoting the National Assembly of Quebec and the House of Commons as authorities. These authorities in turn claim it because it is a widely held belief among social scientists of both Quebec and Canada. -- Mathieugp (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's controversial to English Canadians who do not want to recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation because they know most nations are nations-states. What about the source I've provide where Ignatieff say I would recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada ??? And he's suppose to be a federalist... So have I said before, in a neutral article according to wikipedia policy we have to present all significant views witch means that we have to present the nationalist one at the same time. I was meaning what's is right to have a neutral article... In my opinion a widely held consensus according to Ckatz means Harper way to present Quebec and It's not a neutral source either. So what now ??? --Mobifr (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And It's not a point of vue. It is the true even if you wish not.--Mobifr (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And obviously the parti québecois states himself http://www.pq.org/parti/manifeste-sur-souverainete/ that Quebec is a nation but what worth the opinion of french canadians for you ??? Nothing, I know. Alors que de nouveaux pays naissent régulièrement dans le monde, nous croyons que le Québec doit écrire lui aussi son nom dans le grand livre de l’histoire des peuples. L’aventure du Québec est celle d’une nation qui développe une relation d’égal à égal avec les Premières Nations et la nation inuite, où la communauté anglophone a toute sa place et où est valorisé l’apport des Québécoises et des Québécois issus de l’immigration. Nous avons rendez-vous avec la liberté et avec le pays que portent depuis si longtemps nos espoirs. --Mobifr (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you want to add something that in contentious, even if we here agree that it's true, you need to attribute it by saying something like "The Parti Québecois has argued that because of its unique language, culture, and institutions Quebec is also a nation within Canada." —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And what about Ignatieff, just so you know le parti libéral du Québec say the same thing on his website http://www.plq.org/fre/nos-valeurs, so it's not a matter of what separatist says, It's a matter of what the quebecers says and I am getting really tired to argue with you. So I am going to use mediation If you're not letting make this article right. I think admins should not use their status in the way Ckatz and you are doing it (with a political agenda) and saying because you don't agree and since we need a consensus we should use status quo. Tout en étant fédéraliste, le Parti s’est nettement identifié aux attentes et aux besoins du peuple québécois. Il a surtout cherché à les traduire en des propositions constructives centrées sur l’intérêt du Québec et de sa population. De ce travail d’approfondissement, sont issues des expressions telles que « l’État du Québec », « société distincte », « statut particulier », « droit de retrait », « fédéralisme renouvelé », qui font désormais partie du vocabulaire politique courant. Le Parti libéral a reconnu le caractère propre que sa majorité francophone imprime à la société québécoise en prenant l’engagement de veiller à toujours affirmer et défendre le caractère français du Québec. Il l’a également reconnu en faisant de la langue française la langue officielle du Québec, en favorisant son essor dans tous les secteurs, en particulier dans la vie économique, où des leaders francophones dynamiques et compétents s’imposent désormais. En octobre 2003, notre Premier ministre, Jean Charest, a déposé une motion à l’Assemblée nationale par laquelle tous les parlementaires ont réaffirmé d’une seule voix que le Québec forme une nation.--Mobifr (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mobifr : Even an uncontroversial statement of a fact such as "The population of Quebec is presently estimated at 7,870,026" needs a source, so imagine something as politically controversial as "Quebec is a nation". Quoting Ignatieff's stated intention to constitutionalize the status of Quebec as a distinct nation within Canada (in the context of an election for party leadership) is obviously not as strong as a motion or resolution by the House of Commons or the National Assembly. If this question is of particular interest to you, I suggest you do some research and work on improving the quality, depth, and neutrality (currently very much lacking) of the article Québécois nation motion. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about Harper's motion. The question is does Quebec answer to the definition of a nation ? I believe It is and this is important enough for a mention in the lead. Now, they ask me for sources and I've found them since the mains political party in Quebec (who have been elected and express Quebecers will) both say that is it. So according to wikipedia Policy, I think we can call that a valuable opposing vue to the Harper way to see Quebec. My arguments are here, I have nothing to add. So now, if you don't listen to my arguments, we are just stuck and I can ask myself if it's not done on purpose....--Mobifr (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that only mentioning nationhood in the context of Harper's motion is not paying enough attention to the issue; it is a defining characteristic of the province. I would support something like "Many scholars and politicians have argued that Quebec's unique history and culture make the province a nation within Canada." However, putting it at the end of the first paragraph of the lead would be a bit jarring because the rest of the paragraph deals with geography, so I would ether put it as the third sentence of the first paragraph or in the third paragraph. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all I am asking for since the beginning and considering the importance of the issue, I'd rather have it like you said as the third sentence of the first paragraph--Mobifr (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are many scholars, there must be at least one that we can quote... I found a whole list of them on this document:

Common declaration of sovereignist and federalist intellectuals from Canada and Québec

With the motions, we had a source for the politicians. Now we have one for the scholars. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment This has been extensively (and repeatedly) discussed, leading to the current consensus version. (The most recent large-scale discussion was in July 2009.) The current version - with the "nation" text in the third paragraph - is based on a logical build; the first paragraph outlines the geography, the second paragraph outlines the people, and the third delves into the politics. As such, any changes should go in the thrid paragraph so as to avoid what AG correctly identified as a jarring ine of text. Furthermore, revisions should proably be vetted with a wider audience, given the frequent disputes (and even more frequent POV vandalism). --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Like Arctic.gnome said, It's a defining characteristic of the province (thanks to him for this). What we have seen in July 2009 was not a consensus or it's does not mean the same thing as in French. I think we have everything we need....--Mobifr (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz that we need a wider audience. Maybe it is an opportunity to work a new section that would provide a little more detail on the reasons why it is believed and often asserted as just a fact that Quebec is a nation in addition to being a province of Canada since 1867. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't agree at all. I don't know why you are doing this Mathieugp... So what now, we are waiting to more quebec bashers to come in like Ckatz who's obviously against but do not provide any arguments like I did and tell us that's they believe It's not even when my arguments are good ??? I strongly support the proposition made by Arctic Gnome as "Many scholars and politicians have argued that Quebec's unique history and culture make the province a nation within Canada." --24.226.129.27 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Quebec basher"?!? You know, you really don't do yourself (or your argument) any favours by making unsubstantiated, incorrect and patently ludicrous statements such as that. In fact, by posting those ridiculous claims, you help to illustrate where the problem lies: with the POV warriors who won't rest until the article parrots their personal beliefs and desires. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a POV warrior since what's I am arguing about is only the true. And I think you know it, and you're just acting bad faith. And don't be like I don't know what you're talking about... As you can see I am able to read english, so I do read all the comments on the globe and mail for exemple. I think we should change Canada article too because we have two official languages in Canada witch is bilinguism for francophone and english for the ROC. Against, that's the true but we aren't going to reflect that on Wikipedia aren't we ? But's that's ok we deserve it, since half of us choose to. That's why I give up. Have fun watching the st-jean if you know what is it. We are going to show that we are still there once more.

@24.226.129.27, aka 24-226-129-27.CLCOM.cgocable.ca : Go to the library, grab reliable and credible sources, and do the job correctly instead of attacking imaginary enemies of Quebec on Wikipedia. There are no doubt Quebec bashers roaming here once in a while, but Ckatz is not one of them. Administrators are there to help all of us and considering the amount of spam and nosense contributions they have to fight every day, they are doing a pretty good job. Arctic Gnome's proposed sentence is fine, but without proper sourcing it will not last 2 sec. in Wikipedia. The current article says: "In 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion recognizing the "Québécois as a nation within a united Canada."" It was complicated just to get that to be in the third paragraph, so let's not ruin everything by going to fast. This sentence on the motion links to the Québécois nation motion article, which has a lot of room for improvement. If it were improved intelligently, it could then easily provide material for a section on the main Quebec article where the national dimension of Quebec's society could be discussed in a neutral, irrefutable manner. -- Mathieugp (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, again I don't give a shit about Harper's motion. The FACT is than a lot of quebecers are arguing that Quebec IS a nation as myself. According to Wikipedia policy we should reflect the debate in the lead to reflect Quebec reality. I've provide reliables source already since both main political party recognize Quebec as a nation . So now, if he doesn't let me make the change in the article it's only because he is the kind of Harper and it's not because he's doing is job as an administrator. Artic Gnome is an administrator too. But I don't have more time to lose with people like him arguing in a foreign language. That's why I give up and I can have fun doing what he want with HIS article. --174.91.217.251 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Name

I think that this page should be Québec. To someone from the province, Quebec completely looks wrong. In addition for the accent to be included, at the English website, Québec is always spelled Québec and never Quebec. Let's spell the bloody thing properly. :) Captain Courageous (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This has come up several times, there are guidelines which have been written for this exact scenario. Common english spelling is used on english wikipedia. The guidelines can be found at WP:CANSTYLE/WP:PLACE PS. Quebec is OFTEN spelled Quebec. It is spelled correctly. Accents do not exist in the english language. Po' buster (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Quebec → Québec — Correct official spelling 138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC) This was an uncontroversial request that I thought was actually controversial enough to warrant discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Object. The standard English spelling does not use the French-language diacritic. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:USEENGLISH 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: "Québec" is the officially used spelling. Unless you think that doesn't matter, in which case I propose to move Kolkata to Calcutta. The two positions are incompatible. --J4\/4 <talk> 05:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment the English population of Quebec uses "Quebec", the French population of Quebec uses "Québec" 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment it seems clear from the similarity of interests and similarity of posts to WP:RD that J4V4 is the same editor as the anon IP who started this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#French names. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• What is your source that the official spelling is with the accent? Section five of the Constitution, which is the document that named the province, does not use the accent; at least not on the version hosted by the federal Department of Justice. To quote, "Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick."^[3] —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Quebec is clearly the official, as well as the most commonly used, English name. Regarding the Indian example above, the official English name was changed from Calcutta to Kolkata. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - English and French are both official languages of Canada so the provincial name has two official spellings - Quebec and Québec. What's important is to determine usage in English, i.e. WP:UE and since there is an official English spelling, we have to go with Quebec. Green Giant (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose While the use of an accented é in English for both Quebec and Montreal does appear to be on the increase, for the foreseeable future I cannot see a justification to deviate from our MOS for French-language names in Canada, in cases where the English version is still in common use in RS, as it is here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google, Google scholar, Google books and Google news all seem to show more hits for Quebec than Québec. Additionally I note the above comment that Quebec is the form used in the English language form of the constitution (although I notice the French version uses Québec). These taken together, along with WP:USEENGLISH, suggest Quebec is the most sensible title. Dpmuk (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's stick with the WP:MOS. Although federal laws drop the accent, Quebec laws spell Québec with it (see here and here). Let's stick with the house rules. Bouchecl (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PILEON. — AjaxSmack 00:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - There is absolutely no way this article should be moved. This RM should be closed, it is clearly going to have no support. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnic Origin

Hi, I just wanted to ask if you can change Canadian for French-Canadian in the section ethnic group. Canadian are composed of different ethnic groups, for example French-Canadian and English-Canadian are not the same ethnic group. I hope this will be changed soon. Thank you. Qc77 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Basically, they are in Canada 5 originals ethnic groups, the french-canadien and the english canadien, the first Nations, Inuit and Metis. And of course i dont forget all the others writted on the section ethnic group...(italian,greek...etc) :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis1234567890123 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We can't change Canadian to French-Canadian because not everyone in Quebec who self-reported themselves to be "Canadian" on the census are French-Canadian. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Change it, I believe your federal census is wrong. There is only 2 Canadian ethnic group, French Canadians and English-Canadians. Québécois is a nationality but not an ethnic group. All of it must be change. French-Canadian and English-Canadian are not united as an ethnic group, uniting it is only an attemp of the federal to help national unity, it is political. Also the article say Québec is a province in east central canada. It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population and the only one whose sole official language is French at the provincial level. People are not dumb, Québec is a Canadian province, it is writed, they don't need to be tell "at the provincial level". You don't need to write "Province", "Canadian province", "provincial" at every sentence. DeChamplain (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you think the census is wrong does not make it so. Just because you think there are only two ethnic groups does not make it so. If the census is wrong and there are only two ethnic groups then you will be able to provide reliable sources very easily. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you think there are more, does not make it so. There are only two official Canadian ethnic groups, French-Canadian and English-Canadian, it cannot be associated into one ethnic group. The Acadiens are not even represented in this census, it is wrong. If there are more then 2 Canadian ethnic groups, then why you don't write, French Canadian, Irish Canadian, Italian Canadian, English Canadian, North American Indian Canadian, Scottish Canadian, Québécois Canadian, German Canadian, Chinese Canadian, Haitian Canadian, Spanish Canadian, Jewish Canadian (like if a religion is an ethnic group), Greek Canadian, Polish Canadian, Lebanese Canadian, Portuguese Canadian, Belgian Canadian, East Indian Canadian, Romanian Canadian, Russian Canadian, Moroccan Canadian, American Canadian, Métis Canadian, Vietnamese Canadian. We are all Canadians, if ethnic groups does not means anything, then you don't need to write a ethnic groups section on this article. Just write Canadians, 7,886,108. Honestly this is ridiculous. DeChamplain (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the sources for there being "only two official Canadian ethnic groups" and for the census being wrong. Please provide. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Origins of Canadians. Moxy (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Write what you want, don't listen to Quebecers and use Canadian government statistics. Don't ask yourself why millions of Quebecers want independence. This article does not represent Québec it represent the English-Canadian vision of Québec. DeChamplain (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly your statistic are ridiculous, Ontarians are cited as an ethnic group, what is supposed to be an Ontarian? White Anglo Saxon Protestant? DeChamplain (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we cant change the way Stats Can and Canadians self identify. That would be a matter to be taken up with statscan and CanadiansMoxy (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

White Anglo Saxon Protestant is an Americanism that has nothing to do with us in this country. Varlaam (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Quebec not the world's largest producer of hydroelectricity

In the "Economy" section the following claim is made: "hydroelectricity (of which Quebec is also the world's largest producer through Hydro-Québec)[81][82]." But this isn't true, as you can see from the chart "Ten of the largest hydroelectric producers as at 2009" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#World_hydroelectric_capacity. Of the two notes, the first one is not relevant. The second one says only that Hydro-Québec is the world's largest producer of hydroelectricity. Felix Sonderkammer (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the two noites document that Hydro-Quebec is the world's largest producer of hydropower. It would seem to be so because hydropower production in China is split between two or more producers.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quebec itself is not the largest producer of hydroelectricity; it is the fourth largest after China, Russia and the US. However, as a corporate entity, Hydro-Québec, owned by the Quebec government, is the largest single hydroelectric generator in the world. Reference in the lede section of the Hydro-Québec article. Bouchecl (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Case closed. I fixed the mess. Bouchecl (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Zephirin, 14 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

This statement in the Wickipedia document on Quebec concerning the Charter on the French Language provision is incomplete:

...Since the 1970s, languages other than French on commercial signs have been permitted only if French is given marked prominence. This law has been the subject of periodic controversy since its inception....

This statement leaves a negative impression and ignores the tremendous improvements that the signage and other provisions of the Charter brought to Quebec society. To give a more accurate picture of the real situation, the following words should be added in my opinion.

While it disrupted some long established unilingual English-only practices in the commercial sector in Montréal, the adoption of this provision, and other provisions to protect the French language in Québec, greatly reduced linguistic tensions in the Province and gave the French-speaking population a feeling of cultural security.

Zephirin (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The spelling of "Quebecker"

I have changed the spelling of the demonym to "Quebecker." It is the officially recognized form for the Canadian Parliament. You can see the following record for an example- from Hansard, the official record of debates in the House of Commons :: 39th Parliament, 1st Session - Edited Hansard - Number 085 - November 23, 2006. Also, in the Oxford Dictionary, "Quebecker" is the only spelling offered- see Oxford Dictionary Online. --Skol fir (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The spelling "Quebecer" looks ridiculous and barely literate. It's the same as writing "drug trafficer".

A 'c' followed by an 'e' is soft, not hard. Varlaam (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

French: Québec [kebɛk]

That IPA pronunciation looks to me like French from France pronunciation. Is that how our countrymen actually say it? Varlaam (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about your compatriots, but that's how we, Quebecers, say it in Quebec. Bouchecl (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FLQ

The FLQ should not be called a "terrorist group" on this article regardless of the fact that terrorism was the main tactic that they used to achieve their aims. In the source article (The Canadian Encyclopedia) it is called a revolutionary movement and in the Front de libération du Québec article itself, it is called a paramilitary group. Its members shouldn't be called "terrorists" either but should be called "militants" if we are to follow Wikipedia standards of impartiality. Survey all the articles about modern "terrorist" organizations on Wikipedia such as Al-Qaeda and you shall see that they are not called terrorist groups. --Davo88 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Left a note in the edit saying not to use "terrorists" anymore and why. -- Offiikart (Talk) 13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit) Here is why it can't be used: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." From Definitions of terrorism 6th paragraph. Therefore not in accordance with WP standards of impartiality. -- Offiikart (Talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've restores the term "paramilitary" and the description "terrorism" per the pre-existing sources (such as the Canadian Encyclopedia). It is quite clear that - even if one chooses to dispute the term "terrorists" for the group itself - there is adequate and appropriate sourcing to validate the use of the term "terrorism" to describe their actions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For sure, not using the word terrorists doesn't mean we approve the actions of that group, even if these actions can actually be considered as terrorist but only that we do not want, as an encyplopedia, to give a jugement on this group. Thank you Ckatz for your comments. -- Offiikart (Talk) 20:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous Economy Section

Economic relations between Quebec and France are very important. France is the second largest foreign investor in Quebec, behind the U.S., but ahead of the United Kingdom.[52] In 2008, about 30 000 Quebeckers are employed in 350 French companies in the province of Quebec, and about 11 000 French work in 140 Quebec businesses in France. Actually it's the US which is far more important Main export partners United States (72.2%) United Kingdom (2.6 %) Germany (2.0 %) France (1.9 %) Netherlands (1.8 %)

Main import partners United States (31.1 %) China (8.3 %) Algeria (8.1 %) United Kingdom (7.9 %) Germany (4.0 %) Japan (4.0 %) And not a single line about that! Please remove the information about French - Quebec economic relation, it's ridiculous.

 Done I've added a section on import/export with relevant references. The "French" market has also been reviewed. --Offiikart^Talk 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, about the achievement of Quebec's life science: Recently, researchers from Université Laval have discovered the secret behind the immune system of a bacterium, a major discovery that could solve the problem of some bacteria's resistance to antibiotics.[78] Dr. Richard Béliveau[79] and his team from Université du Québec à Montréal have made a major breakthrough in the treatment of brain cancer. This breakthrough could help cure Alzheimer, Schizophrenia, Parkinson's and everything that affects the brain.[80] An international study led by the Univeristé de Montréal has uncovered new mutations in the gene SHANK3 in patients with Schizophrenia. This major discovery will help find a cure for this disease that currently affects 1% of world population. All sources are in French and I am not sure they are noticeable. Sure, there were some important achievement at McGill but it seems that no one cares and you know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcanbiet(talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

First, rather than removing stuff, you should add some. The section is bad enough as it doesn't talk about Quebec's main industries (aerospace, aluminium, forestry, mining...) for instance. If you're serious about it (don't forget adding sources!) then go ahead. Second, some free advice: spend some time fixing a basic user page, so we know who you are. Bouchecl (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"All sources are in French and I am not sure they are noticeable", constructive comments are much appreciated : search for others if you think they're not suitable. "Sure, there were some important achievement at McGill but it seems that no one cares and you know why", there was a lot of frustration in this comment which is not normal in a discussion on an article that is theoretically neutral, if you have a problem, write it but do not criticize; maybe the person who did this wasn't able to find a research in McGill with enough citations to write it. -- Offiikart (Talk) 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quebec/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this for inadequate citations. Not only does it have many uncited paragraphs, in some places there are more than a half dozen consecutive uncited ones. In general, a properly organized article will have at least one inline citation in each paragraph since each paragraph should present a distinct set of facts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

References IMPORTANT!

Since we are having problems with the references (in general), I fixed and improved the "References" section by adding subsections and a list of journal publications. I also corrected all the references from #135 to #162, using the same template every time for more consistency. The result is a much more relevent and consistent article far easier to work with. However, this work (fixing the refs) takes a LOT of time and is pretty boring so I would greatly appreciate some help since we have something like 200 references left to fix. Also, I would appreciate if everybody could write any changes or modifications you would like to bring to these sections BEFORE applying them since a lot of time have already been put to fix the mess. Coordinate efforts are always better. Thank you for your time. -- Offiikart^Talk 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job ... I ran reflinks hope this helped a bit with ref format - still missing lots of refs - I will see what i can find. As for how it looks so far so good. I see a few things that need some fixing, but nothing all that big. Moxy (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

lots of one sentence paragraphs (an easy fix)

We dont realy have a need for all those HUGE charts - since they have there own pages already (this carts take lots of load time)  Done --Offiikart^Talk 00:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We should not sandwich text between two pictures.  Done many images were removed and (I think) that all images currently on the article are relevant, tell me if you think the text still looks "sandwiched" but I dont think so --Offiikart^Talk 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I'll try to take care of that in the next days. -- Offiikart^Talk 13:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Quebecer, Quebecker, Quebecois

"Quebecker: This is the preferred spelling according to Hansard, the official record of debates in the House of Commons (e.g., 39th Parliament, 1st Session - Edited Hansard - Number 085 - November 23, 2006). Also, technically speaking, the commonly accepted English spelling is "Quebecker". The rules of English pronunciation require a "k" after the "c" for a hard sound. In the Oxford Dictionary, "Quebecker" is the only spelling offered (see Oxford Dictionary Online). The Globe & Mail uses "Quebecker" (see: Quebeckers' mental Bloc - article by Jeffrey Simpson after the 2008 election; October 18, 2008). It is sometimes spelled "Quebecer" in other newspapers and magazines, such as the Montreal Gazette and Macleans magazine.

I've placed the footnote above in the discussion because it does not represent a consensus, but the personal opinion of the author. We've been through this before. "Quebecer" is the most common way of identifying Quebeckers. I personally prefer Quebecker, but wiki guidelines clearly state that the most common use must be considered first. More English media use "Quebecer" than "Quebecker". The Globe and Mail is the only major media outlet to use Quebecker. The CBC, the Gazette, Sun newspapers, etc. nearly all use "Quebecer". Googling (the wikipedia guideline for determining common usage in the case where both are commonly used) clearly shows "Quebecer" [4](250 000 hits) is more common than "Quebecker"[5](79 800 hits). Until this changes, Quebecer should come first, and take priority in case of disputes on usage. Also, Quebecois can be a denonym, or it can refer to French speakers residing in Quebec. It's ambiguous, particularly in English. --soulscanner (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Depuis quand c'est ambigu d'utiliser un terme français ?De Grasse (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quebecer is the right form (and Quebecer beats Quebecker 15 to 1 on the Quebec government web sites). I have no problem with soulscanner's edit. Bouchecl (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

It would be nice if there was a section header on the paragraph on Religion under Demographics to make it easier to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.138.48 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hockey

The section on hockey is confusing and difficult to understand, especially the sentence that relates the anecdote of the first game played in Montreal. In addition, the "national" sport reference is ambiguous as to whether it refers to Hockey being Canada's national winter sport, popular across the country, or whether it refers to the Quebec nation within Canada, as referred to in the names National Assembly and Fete Nationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtaphorical (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to forget that Canada is a federation and not a country. It is the provinces that make up the country and Quebec is considered as a nation even if Quebec is not a country for now. Moreover the Ice Hockey was invented in the province of Quebec. It is therefore natural to talk about national sport. De Grasse (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that Canada is not a country makes you either an idiot or someone who does not speak English. Which, pray tell? Varlaam (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Je vais t'écrire en français pour te faire un grand plaisir. Comme ça on va être sur la même longueur d'onde toi et moi. C'est mon opinion et comme j'aime partager mon sac de croustilles, tu vas devoir t'y faire. Par ailleurs à la place de me traiter d'imbécile ou d'insulter mon faible anglais, tu devrais plutôt m'aider à contribuer sur la page du Québec et corriger mes fautes. De Grasse (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My issue with the hockey section is the reference (twice) of the Montreal Canadiens as "Canadiens de Montréal". Being the English version of Wikipedia, the team should be referred to by its English name. Similarly, if, for example, the Philadelphia Flyers were mentioned in fr.wikipedia.org, they would be called "Flyers de Philadelphie".Djob (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Le CH était à l'origine une équipe de hockey francophone afin de briser la barrière entre les anglophones et les francophones, car à l'époque, et même encore aujourd'hui, il existe de l'hostilité systématique irrationnelle à l'égard des Québécois et des francophones hors-Québec. Le hockey était alors un sport joué entre anglophones à Montréal et les joueurs francophones n'étaient pas acceptés. De vouloir changer le nom français pour un nom anglais est à mon avis irrespectueux à l'histoire de cette équipe qui est un des symboles de la défense des francophones au Québec et en Amérique du Nord. De Grasse (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to you. The official name of the team in English is "The Montreal Canadiens". Regardless of whatever victim story you've cooked up about it, you cannot change the fact that this is what the team is called. SteveMcQwark (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Québec or Quebec

Québec (with the acute accent) is the city's official name in both French and English. [6] [7] [8]--Gilbertus (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

English usage favours "Quebec." Both Oxford and Webster's Dictionaries use the unaccented version. "Quebec" gets 262M hits on Google, as compared with "Québec," which gets 119M. Sunray (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Québec (with the acute accent) is the city's official name. Google is a bot. Idem for Québec City and Montréal.[9][10][11][12][13][14]--Gilbertus (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Gilbertus, please become familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions before making such a fuss and moving articles. This has nothing to do with Google. We do not defer to official names on Wikipedia - official names will be mentioned in the article, but do not necessarily dictate the title or content of an article. Rather, we use the names most commonly recognized in the English language. Please see WP:CANSTYLE#French names for more information in this specific context. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And, just as an aside, we are all well aware of what the official names are. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Google hits for words with diacritics are notoriously unreliable. A better argument in favor of Quebec versus Québec is that English-language sources that retain diacritics when they are used in English (such as Besançon) but omits them when they are omitted in English (such as Mexico) prefer the diacriticless spelling.

Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486652/Quebec "Quebec, French Québec, eastern province of Canada."

Columbia Gazetteer: http://www.columbiagazetteer.org/main/ViewPlace/7/115235 "Quebec (kwuh−BEHK), French, Québec (kai−BEHK)" --Atemperman (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

Can we place the pronunciation inside the parentheses? Quebec /kwəˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/ (French: Québec [kebɛk] ( listen)) to Quebec (French: Québec [kebɛk] ( listen) or /kwəˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/ ) This will maintain a consist format on location wiki pages as most have this format. It also makes it easier to parse real text from recommended insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcc8 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

De Facto / De Jure

The Lieutenant Governor is the 'De Jure' head of state, and not really the 'De Facto' head of state (first line in section 5: "The Lieutenant Governor represents Queen Elizabeth II as the de facto head of state."). De Facto would imply significantly more practical power than he actually has (though in the written laws, all the provincial governors have a great deal of authority, including veto power and dissolving parliament, de facto they are decisions made by the premier). Arnoldsd02 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "Head of State" for a province, which isn't a sovereign state in the eyes of international law, is itself a bit odd, though an argument could be made that the term applies because provinces are co-sovereign with the federal government. Regardless, the Queen is the Head of State of Canada and each of its provinces individually, though with a distinct legal identity in each. Now, I'm not huge on this, as I'm personally fine with referring to the various viceroys a heads of state (for all practical purposes they are, and the argument against it is tenuous at best and only really exists at the insistence of ardent monarchists rather than any official source), however, this use is controversial at best, and incorrect at worst. A more accurate term would be "de jure chief executive". SteveMcQwark (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The original sentence only needs to have one word changed - de facto for either de jure or, better still, avoid the unnecessary qualifiers and just say "Quebec's head of state": "The Lieutenant Governor represents Queen Elizabeth II as the Quebec's head of state". Obviously, this is saying that Queen Elizabeth is the head of state, and the Liutenant Governor represents her. To use the terms de jure and de facto just confuses the any uninitiated reader into thinking there is some constitutional crisis or dispute between the lieutenant governor and the premier. 123.3.134.159 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing citation

This cite [15] does not seem to be pointing to any book/journal / whatever. Does anyone know what book or journal or newpaper article or whatever it is meant to link to? Cheers.MW ^ℳ 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction of typo in the climate section

I've just removed a stray zero from the end of the figure for amount of snow in inches (from 120 to 12, supposed to be equivalent to 300 mm). Mashzeroth (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had to revert that as the snow depth is in centimetres. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Confederation-1944

The article is missing an eighty-year span of Quebec's history here. Will someone perhaps add more? Interchangeable|talk to me 22:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

tio

linr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.152.133 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reordering

I have ordered and grouped the sections in a way that seems consistent with a majority of the Province articles. I intend to do the same with the other 9 plus territories unless someone disputes this. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article needs a lot more work than this! Any more advice on formatting would be greatly appreciated! --soulscanner (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

GDP

The GDP figure should be in millions, not billions. Alternatively, it should read 319.3 billion. Jmlmtl (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012

The population of Québec has reached more than 8 million in the past months. The data should reflect that change.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2011/12/13/001-quebec-population-isq.shtml

161.5.0.200 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Le fete de la bastille

could someone please add le fete de la bastille in to the history? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.226.58 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

History section

The history section here is very very big and should be trimmed extensively. I will let othres take a look (over the next few days - no rush all has been here for a long time) - before I trim myself and add refs for this section. Some stuf looks simply copy and pasted from main articles and could be summarized much better. Any help would be great in this regards.Moxy (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic

See the photos and articals about Quebec from the 1997 National Geographic artical, Quebec's Quandary.

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/war-of-words.html

17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)~ Richard Holmstedt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.117.217 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Additional Citations" tag?

I would be tempted to request removal of the 'additional citations required' tag at the top of the article if I could, but since I am a n00b, I'll defer to more experienced wikipedians - does anyone else think the tag, a recent addition, could be removed? If not, what additional sources would be needed? The article seems pretty well sourced to me. Thanks! Ottavienne (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

...and someone removed it - thanks! Ottavienne (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'additional citations required' tag was there for a reason. In July 2011, the article didn't pass the quality test to be rated as a good Article because of many reasons, the prior being the obvious lack of sources. An article of this length should have at least one or two citations per paragraphs which is not the case at the moment. Offiikart^Talk 14:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - tag was placed by me (I actually read the article after the review). We have whole sections like "Oka Crisis" and "Gastronomy" with no refs at all and many sections that need lots more references. I have added 7 refs thus far but need to find many more. I stated above that I think the History section is way to big and needs a trim long before refs are added.Moxy (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is already a very well-referenced article, with hundreds of references. It's not perfect, but there is hardly any article on Wikipedia that could not be improved. By the standard you are applying, practically every single article in Wikipedia could have a {{refimprove}} tag, and the tag would become utterly meaningless. This tag should be reserved for articles that are poorly referenced overall, not for articles that need spot improvements (which would mean: every article). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We should at the very least have {{unreferenced section}} tags for the unreferenced sections. To be honest, I think the {{refimprove}} tag should be left there, given there are multiple unreferenced sections. I also think this is an article of great enough importance that unreferenced material should not be allowed to slide. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides all the problem sections above - We have section like "Fête nationale (National Holiday)" again no refs and things like "Topography" and "Imports and exports" that start with some refs but then just fall off. I always believe its better to add one tag then to tag every other section. Not need to spam tags even if the article is pretty bad. As I said before I believe most of these unreferenced section were just basically copy and pasted from main articles that have no refs to begin with. Lets trim them down and find refs. Lets get these references up-two par with our other C class articles (not hard)- e.g. Military history of Canada - Multiculturalism in Canada- History of Canada - Culture of Canada. No need to waste our time on the viability of what tags goes where or how many or type are needed or not needed?Moxy (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Labeling the whole article--especially a long one---with no indication of where the refs are needed can be pretty intimidating. Labeling the biggest problem sections, however, allows editors to home in sections they are more confident of being able to fix. More than once I've come across an unreferenced section like that, and though, "Hey! I've got a source for that" and added it. Unless I'm particularly interested in the article, I find myself far less likely to hunt out the problem parts first and then decide whether I can do something about them.

Would it seem less like "spamming" if the tags could be made less prominent---say, if they fit in a single line? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Article locked - need to remove weasel word

Hello, there is a sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the introductory section which states: "In 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a symbolic motion, the Québécois nation motion, recognizing the "Québécois as a nation within a united Canada."[12][13]". I strongly feel that the word "symbolic" in this context is a weasel word and is axe-grinding by Quebec anti-sovereigntists, and needs to be removed immediately, as it is unencyclopaedic and makes the article look quite biased. I would also like to point out that there are two references which support the comment having been made, but there are no sources stating that is was symbolic. I have seen the archival discussions, which were supposedly discussing this, but which were really thinly-veiled debates between Quebec sovereingtists and Canadian federalists. My basis for removing this weasel word has nothing to do with such a debate, and is about making this article more encyclopaedic. Also, before I am accused of being a Quebec sovereigntist, I am an anglophone, and I am not from Quebec (I'm Australian), nor is my family from Quebec, and nor do I have an axe to grind on this subject. 123.3.134.159 (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you aren't misinterpreting the use/meaning of the word symbolic in this context: perhaps it is meant to mean that the motion was important? Murmuration (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This also isn't a case of weasel words, as that refers to instances when vague statements are made as if they are meaningful. "Symbolic" in this context means that it was not a serious resolution, but just a measure passed for political show and without any real effect. siafu (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole reference to the Quebecois nation motion should be removed. It's not on par with the two referendums or even the Clarity Act, and not a significant enough resolution to be included in the introduction. --soulscanner (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement has to stay there. It is highly symbolic for the people of Quebec while engaging nothing from the Canadian governement. This motion was a significant part of the election campain of the actual government and explains the vote from the french-speaking people. Offiikart^Talk 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quebec now under Bill 78

It should now be noted that Quebec is a Constitutional Monarchy under Emergency Law until July 2013 in the info box, under government type.

Could this change be made? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguerard27 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This law is actually being challenged and a lot of political problems are related to the social crisis that brought the government to vote bill 78. Thus, I think it would be better to wait for the crisis to end before writing anything about it. This would prevent political disputes and controversy. Thanks, Offiikart^Talk 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Stability of the article is important, especially in the introduction of an article. In a situation as volatile as this, the article would have to be constantly updated and checked for POV.

Literature

The two examples of theatre plays, Les belles-soeurs and Broue, are not part of the "terroir" category. They are both urban plays about working-class people and are very much the product of the quiet revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.78.67 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request, August 13th, 2012: Quebec's Debt Rating

"The credit rating of Quebec is currently rated Aa2 according to Moody's rating agency. In comparison to the rest of the world, Quebec has the same credit rating as countries such as Italy, Japan and Spain."

While Quebec's rating is correct, the comparison to other countries is outdated. Spain, Italy and Japan have all been downgraded (see here), while Quebec's rating been maintained at Aa2. The article should be updated to reflect this.

184.175.15.228 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012

65.92.184.139 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Sherbrooke, the first industrial city of Canada, was producing 20% of the beer consumed in all the country during industrial era. The brand Abenakis was one of the famous brand known at that time

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2012

lots of content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
APPARENT COPY OF ARTICLE REMOVED 96.21.197.213 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. That looks like a copy of the existing article. What specifically do you want changed? RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Use proper accents

When the page is opened for editing, or when it gets updated, please change every instance of "Quebec" to read "Québec" (including derivatives, such as "Québécois" and "Québécoise"). Source: http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun?lang=en (i.e., even in its English language display, the government of Québec adds the diacritic every time it cites the name of Québec).

Note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style, with regards to varieties of English, states:

"The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines."

Since there exists a definitive, reliable source in English (i.e., the Québec government portal web site cited above) which DOES unfailingly use the diacritic, this should be dispositive here as well. Cf., e.g., the Wikipedia article for Curaçao which also uses the proper diacritic in every instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjkporter (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Quebec without the accent is the correct English spelling of the province, as is shown on Federal Government websites, Source: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/altpay-eng.asp

Similarly Montreal without the accent is the English version of Montréal. Québécois and Québécoise are French words (the English is Quebecker) so these should retain the accents. languagegeek (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But see http://www.gc.ca/othergov-autregouv/prov-eng.html, which is a Federal Government website (using the English language version) showing all Canadian provinces, and which shows the province as Québec. An occasional reference here or there on the Federal Government website hardly seems authoritative to me, whereas the official government website of the province of Québec ought to be the most definitive source for its own name. Cjkporter (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - As per WP:CANFRENCH- The Canadian Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Canadian Wikipedia articles. It presents Canadian styles, and is intended to help editors to produce articles with proper Canadian language, layout, and formatting that are consistent, clear, and precise. Moxy (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2012 - Change of Premier after Elections

| Premier = [Pauline Marois]] | PremierParty = PQ

Pmov (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

She has not been sworn in as premier yet. That is not to take place until tomorrow (Wednesday, 19 September). [16] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity Problems

After going through and editting this article for a bit, I feel like there's been some quite large objectivity problems (at least w/ the economy section). There's many places where it will use phrases like "one of the world leaders in..." and then only have a Quebec government website to support that. I've also found quite a few places where the article does not match with the source listed, and it is usually done in a way to amplify Quebec's positives. Perhaps it is a problem strictly with the section I was dealing with, but I'm rather concerned by it.

As an aside, I've also found this article littered with grammar errors

Nanophys (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The article also calls Catholicism a cult even though the definition of cult is: "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." Yet another example of how hopelessly biased in favour of atheism Wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.81.139 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - POV mention of cult removed.Moxy (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Awkward sentence in the first paragraph

I find the following sentence in the first paragraph to be rather awkward.

"It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French speaking population and is the only sole official language at the provincial level."

It reads as if Quebec itself is the only sole official language at the provincial level. That can't be right. This awkward sentence can be fixed by simply replacing "is the only sole" with "only one," which is French. That would clear it up. danielkueh (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to just insert the word French, as in "and French is the only sole official language". siafu (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree...i say go do it.Moxy (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but I've already changed it. I just couldn't wait. :D danielkueh (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Denver Church in Norfolk, UK has a plaque on the wall. It reads, 'Sacred to the memory of HORACE MANN. A mate of His Majesty's ship, Pique. Who, in a gallant attempt to save the life of a perishing shipmate, was drowned in Diamond Harbour, Quebec, on the night of the 24th of August 1853. This tablet is erected by the Captain and Officers of His Majesty's ship, Pique. As a memorial of their esteem for his many virtues, their admiration of his heroic self-devotedness, and of their deep and lasting regret for his untimely fate. "The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance"' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.52.90 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013

Brandan.ranaldi (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Quebec was originally called Stadecona. This is a native word meaning "Where the river narrows." It is talking about the St. Laurence River in Quebec.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is not mentioned anywhere in this article or the History of Quebec article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call. According to the Commission de toponymie du Québec (French), Quebec (spelled Kephek, Kepek, Gepeg) comes from the algonquin languages family, spoken by the Algonquin, Abenaki and Mikmaq and means "where the river narrows" (or a variation thereof). Stadacona was the St. Lawrence Iroquoian village at the confluence of the Lairet and St. Charles river, where Jacques Cartier met Donnacona and spent his first winter in North America, back in 1535. Bouchecl (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2013

quebec is a province of Canada quebec is [ not yet] never a state

174.92.157.99 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disregard. The only mention of Quebec as a "state" is in a category at the bottom of the article. Bouchecl (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013- Total population in the English version

Total total population should be (like in the french version) 8,054,800 and not 8,080,550

The link (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-qc-eng.htm) for the estimation of the population is not in use. The good link for the population estimation is: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm Phoude66 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Updated with latest figure from Institut de la statistique du Québec for 2012. The correct number is 8,054,756 [17]. Bouchecl (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

funky wording

In the last sentence of the heading, "These many industries have all contributed to helping Quebec become Canada's second most economically influential province, second only to Ontario," says "second" twice and just sounds weird. could we please correct this repetition to the following:

These many industries have all contributed to helping Quebec become one of Canada's most economically influential provinces, second only to Ontario.

please? Will.crisler (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole section should be removed. The rankings on the side show it as being the poorest province on a per capita basis. Its larger population makes up for it in absolute terms, and most of its influence comes from the fact that they have a lot of people, not wealth. - Anonymous

How many monolingual francophones, and where?

I'm watching a French Canadian movie (Mon oncle Antoine) in which a character says he doesn't speak English. I wondered what percentage of Canadian francophones are like him, with no or very minimal knowledge of English. I can't find that information in this article, at least not in the Language section. I think it should be there. There are mentions of how many speak French, and later of how many also speak English, but the two statistics seems to come from different sources so I didn't presume to calculate a percentage of monolingual francophones and add it to the article myself. I suspect other readers like me sometimes wonder how many French Canadians don't speak English at all, so that seems like information this article should (and fairly easily could) provide.

It would also be interesting to know where they're located in the province. The people in the movie are rural, where it makes sense that there'd be no reason to learn English; but the article gives the impression that, compared to Montreal, Quebec City is monolingual, yet when I was there about twelve years ago I didn't come across anybody who couldn't speak English. The friend I was traveling with had wanted to practice his French, but he couldn't find anybody willing to speak it. —Jim10701 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You may find some answers in Language demographics of Quebec, which states that 34% of Quebec francophones declared a knowledge of English in 1996. I don't have the current regional breakdown, but it is safe to assume the proportion of unililingual francophones is higher outside of Montreal and the Outaouais region. This page from a 1988 study by the Conseil supérieur de la langue française shows the evolution of bilingualism among French-speaking Quebecers. Bouchecl (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The latest official statistics (not assigning a value to them, just sayin' they were produced by the census!) are from the 2011 census. There, they said, under the "knowlege of official languages" bit, that there are 4,047,175 people in Quebec who know French, but do not know English. That's 52% of the population of the province. There are also another 120,000 people in the rest of the country who fall into that category, mostly in either Ontario or New Brunswick, but they're at most (New Brunswick) 9% of the population there.

Another way of answering your question is to divide the total number of cannot-speak-English francophones (4,165,015) into the total number of people in Canada who say that they learned French before English (7,507,890), and we get 55% - 55% of "francophones" cannot speak English. The comparative Anglophone number is (22,564,665/24,662,900 =) 91% of Anglophones cannot speak French.AshleyMorton (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Robins

The article curiously does not mention whether or not Robins nest this far north. I think a few paragraphs on the subject either in the affirmative or negative should be in there somewhere.--24.177.6.38 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be necessary? Anyway which part of Quebec, the south or the north, and what about other birds. Just look at American Robin to see their range. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please fix the US spellings

Like "honor" and "license". Thanks. 142.204.42.80 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. danielkueh (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An actual founding date in a prominent place might be good...

Umm....shall we take it as 1608, which is buried in the second section? It seems to me the lede paragraph is the place to give its date of establishment, and whether one considers S. de Champlain to have founded it, or someone else. I realize people are allergic to history, dates, and causal chronological progressions these days, but...really!108.20.74.63 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Seven Years' Wars &c

The subject topic might benefit from a depiction of an event in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, for example, the death of Wolfe:

The Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West

currently there are five images, all paintings. A sixth would add balance (three and three).

69.60.245.199 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Separation of the Province of Quebec

"Therefore, after the separation of the Province of Quebec, Lower Canada and Upper Canada were formed, each with its own government."

a better sentence might read:

"So the Province of Quebec was split into two at the Ottawa River, reforming into Upper Canada and Lower Canada in the Constitutional Act of 1791."

69.60.245.199 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection?

Is protection still needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.88 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I see something like "Nickname: {{{Nickname}}}" in the infobox of the article....is some parameter in the article used wrongly or the infobox template having some problems? Or just my browser? C933103 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Long article, would like to move some content to "child" articles

I see this article has an editing tag referring to its length. Also, some important "child" articles are languishing without much content (Economy of Quebec, Culture of Quebec). History of Quebec is Ok in covering early history, but it needs more information on 20th century history added to it, and this article covers that period in extensive detail. I would like to create a shorter summary in these subtopics in this main Quebec article, and move the more detailed information to the child articles I just mentioned--I think all the articles will benefit as a result. Any feedback on this idea? OttawaAC (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Debt and Taxes

The statement "Quebec is the highest taxed and indebted province or state in North America" is incorrect and poorly justified, using only opinion pieces. Someone ought to remove the statement and its citations. I'd do it myself, but the page is protected and I'm new... Enigmata456 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence in question, and added some more sources as cited. The sources didn't indicate that Quebec is the most taxed or indebted province/state in "North America", actually it was compared to the other provinces and some selected states in the Fraser Institute report. As for comparing the tax situation with other provinces/states, that's complex, there are myriad ways of measuring and comparing data. Hopefully the way the paragraph is now written makes that a bit clearer. OttawaAC (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Request of change of url

Hello,

My name is Steve Godin, and I’m in charge of advertising on ICI Radio-Canada’s web platforms. As you may well have heard in recent months, the Radio-Canada web site brand now has a new name – ICI Radio-Canada.ca We ask that you please use the URL http://ici.radio-canada.ca rather than http://www.radio-canada.ca in future mentions. We’d really appreciate it if you could correct existing mentions on your site as well. Let’s work together to ensure that your readers always have access to the latest up-to-the-minute news, as well as an optimal web experience.

We think it would be a good idea to update the following mentions in particular:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec

Destination: www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Economie/2010/01/20/014-Dette-etat.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/science/2009/01/21/001-Embargo-scientifiques2008.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2011/12/13/001-quebec-population-isq.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2013/06/04/007-taux-fecondite-2012-comparaison-quebec-canada.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/jeunesse/explorateur/histoire/index.asp?no_contenu=7253 www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/environnement/2009/03/29/001-aires-proteges-quebec.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/science/2010/12/09/001-exoplanete-hr8799e-marois.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Economie-Affaires/2007/10/01/001-taxe-carbone-debut.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/National/2010/03/19/001-hiver-le-plus-chaud.shtml?ref=rss www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/environnement/2010/12/09/001-cancun-baird-provinces.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Economie/2013/10/07/004-quebec-politique-economique-emplois.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2011/04/07/001-quebec-voiture-electrique.shtml www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/science/2009/09/29/001-camera-udm-nasa.shtml

Feel free to contact me, of course, should you have any questions. Regards,

Steve Godin Web Integrator, Advertising and Promotion, Interactive Media

I can do a search and replace for the new URL tomorrow. I'll update this and a few other prominent Quebec articles. Is the URL "cbc.radio-canada.ca" still OK, or should that also be updated to "ici.radio-canada.ca"? (Steve?) OttawaAC (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. OttawaAC (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Pierre Boivin & Etienne Fafard, Original French Colonists and Rectors of Ste. Anne deBeaupre Cathedral in Quebec, CA

I would like to include and preserve information about Pierre (my 9th Great-Grandfather) and his family that served as rectors for the stunningly beautiful Ste. Anne deBeaupre Cathedral in Quebec, Canada whose lengthy service and work was recognized by ceremony and monument at Wikipedia's Quebec, Canada page. Another descendant of Pierre Boivin, Richard Boivin, added content and a photograph from the local newspaper with the caption, "Memorial in honor of the ancestors Pierre Boivin and his wife Étiennette Fafard in the graveyard of the ancestors near the Basilica of Sainte-Anne de Beaupré. Memorial in honor of ancestors Pierre Boivin and his wife Elsa Fafard in the cemetery of ancestors near the Basilica of Sainte-Anne de Beaupré." I have a copy of the photograph showing the monument, and verifiable documentation of the service including Histoire des Canadiens-Français 1608-1880 : origine, histoire, religion, guerres, découvertes, colonisation, coutumes, vie dome and L'Abbe D Tanguay, ADS, Dictionnaire Genealogique des Familles Canadiennes Depuis la Fondation de la Colonie Jusqu'a Nos Jours, Premier Volume, Depuis 1608 jusqu'a 1700, Eusebe Senecal, 1871. Please contact me when this is approved for submission, and I will include all of the detailed information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.114.117 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We spell the word "honour" with a 'u' in this country. The Yanks spell it "honor".

"[S]tunningly beautiful" rather overstates the case, wouldn't you say?

99.247.1.157 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the United States, so of course it's perfectly acceptable for the user to post in their own vernacular spelling. "In this country" is a peculiar turn of phrase...Wikipedia is global. I don't think "stunningly beautiful" is an overstatement either, but such things are subjective. OttawaAC (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Population/GDP Figures

The population and GDP figures are outdated on this page. There is new information available both from StatsCan and The Institut de la statistique du Québec. Please update. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.126.228 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

Quebec was not founded by Jacques Cartier, it was founded by Neil Armstrong.Howesb (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Howesb (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You sure about that? Not done. The Interior (Talk) 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

Under demonym, I wanted to change 'Québecois' to 'Quebecois(e)', reflecting both the masculine and feminine. 199.19.253.57 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: You want to ditch the accent and add an explicit (e) on the end because why? Do you have any reliable source to back up that these changes are proper? Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two accents, so the request should read: Québécois(e). It's a valid request, the equivalent in English would be akin to writing "he/she" instead of "he". See Québécois (word) for more. Vrac (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Québécois, Québecois, and Quebecois are all correct ENGLISH spellings of the word, as this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia we follow ENGLISH spelling and grammar.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Education

i came to this article to check on the status of catholic education being supported by the state. imagine my surprise in discovering that, unlike every other article i have checked on a political subdivision, this article makes no mention of the subject. wtf? Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mother tongue in Quebec

The map for "Mother tongue in Quebec" only shows the color key after being clicked on. I suggest that it show the language-color key in the main article. {If I knew how, I would have done the edit myself; if I were Canadian myself, I would have spelled the word C-O-L-O-U-R. ;-)} ChinaChuck (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)ChinaChuck, 8 April 2015

"Québécois" [sic]

That's the general term in French.
In English, it's Quebecker, or, if you can't spell properly, Quebecer.
Please correct. Thanks. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Québécois refers to an ethnic group. Quebecer/Quebecker refers to anyone from Quebec, whether they're Acadian, Anglophone, allophone, Québécois, or any other background. OttawaAC (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I've seen Québécois used as a general term for any inhabitant of Quebec as well. Never in English, but in French, yes. 70.30.198.176 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, though — so our content on here is governed by the way the word is used in English, not the way it's used in French. We can acknowledge that the French context of the word differs, as a point of information, but we can't simply use the word in the French manner as if English usage didn't differ. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The official term for someone living in Quebec in English and French languages is Québécois. PrancingSkeleton (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

Requested move 30 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Quebec → Québec – The formal name of this place is Québec, not Quebec, see [18] and [19] RekishiEJ (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. We use English on the English-language Wikipedia. [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Zarcadia (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose. The websites the nominator has linked to are not authoritative, at least not if we go by WP:WIAN. For authoritative British and American spelling, see here and here. Additon: I just noticed the bung above declaring this article to be in "Canadian English." The most official Canadian source is Natural Resources Canada, which operates a geographic names server. Too hip to be cool (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Strike above per c-banned user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Am tempted to support as per UNESCO : Historic District of Old Québec and Québec City amongst others. I do not think that an encyclopedia should be governed by newspaper headlinese while recognising that many still use "Quebec". There is a prevalence of using Quebec but I have to wonder about the extent that this may be down to the laziness of editors not being bothered to present the accented "é". GregKaye 13:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as per trackratte GregKaye 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. Calidum T|C 13:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Anglophones cannot type diacritics and should not have to, as they are not used in English. This is the English Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• What? What one's first/primary language is has no bearing on one's ability to type diacritics, and yes, diacritics are used in English. Whether an accent should be included in this case is a more specific question, and I would be inclined to answer no - but let's not use overbroad arguments to support that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The official name in English for the province is Quebec according to the Canadian government, whereas the official name of the city is Québec. Vrac (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the nominator has provided no evidence that the province is best known known as Québec by English language speakers whereas the people opposing the move have provided evidence to the contrary form the government of Canada.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. While I understand I am in the minority, having Québec the province match Québec the city does make sense. ONR (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It already does match since the city is listed as Quebec City on Wikipedia.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If anything were to be moved, a better case could be made to move the article Quebec City to City of Québec and redirect, instead of the opposite which is currently in place. According to the same source, Quebec City is unofficial and "informal". But it would be a bit nitpicky, I don't see any problem with leaving them the way they are. I just added "City of Québec" to the list of aliases in the Quebec City article. Vrac (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Quebec City, with or without the diacritic, is by far the most common name in English compared to City of Québec, again with or without the diacritic. I'm reluctant to believe "City of Québec" is the official English name when the official French name is "Ville de Québec" and the official translation of "ville" is "town". I'd need provincial legislation, or municipal legislation, to confirm the English translation in the above link is correct. In any event, it really is moot as no city articles on WP as far as I know (in North America anyway) use the "Status of Given Name" convention. Hwy43 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ville is translated as City by the Office de la langue francais' toponymie commission, officially, for many cities. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

65.94.43.89, is there a link you can provide to that? I've been assuming Statistics Canada's approach to the translation was correct. See how town = ville and apparently city = cité here. There is another editor here that is adamant that ville translates to town and is hostile towards others that think otherwise. To me, it is reasonable that ville could translate to city in the French Canadian context, but I've been unable to beat this drum without evidence. Any link you could provide would be helpful in that. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ville" can be translated to city, absolutely — but it can also be translated to town. The problem is that there's no particular standard for determining which way to translate it in any individual case — while obviously nobody would seriously propose that we refer to Montreal or Quebec City or Trois-Rivières or Gatineau as towns, there are a lot of smaller villes for which it would be a constant and unresolvable debate which way to turn. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bearcat: see the current state of List of municipalities in Quebec and the first thread on its talk page. As the translation could be either (i.e. town or city), it appears we agree it is a tad absurd to translate to "town" for Montréal, but that is exactly what has happened. Likewise it might also be absurd to translate to "city" for L'Île Dorval on that list. As there is a massive grey area in between, would it be appropriate to use "ville" rather than the two possible translations in that list so that we are not ORing which ones are "cities" versus which ones are "towns"? As you can see, this is why I am asking the IP editor to provide a link or anything else to provide direction on how to approach that list. Hwy43 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vrac's discovery. Identification therein that the English spelling is Quebec (without the diacritic) is evidently unambiguous. Hwy43 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Canadian English acceptably does not include the accent in English preferentially -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Question - What do full font British English books do? Canadian English isn't necessarily representative of English globally when related to French speaking Canada because there is a local tradition of creating "Canadian English names" which is just accent-stripping. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • British English is not relevant. Canada is not part of Britain, and the nearest neighbouring English is American English, not British English. BrEng fails MOS:TIES; this is not the British Wikipedia. Canada is no longer a British Colony, and we should not revert to that situation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

But in this context, where there is according to WP:RS a certain feeling about French Canadian names among some non-French Canadians, a British/Irish/EU/Indian English is far enough away to be more neutral. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Quebec is home to 600,000 native English-speaking Canadians (a larger population than that of PEI, NL, or any of the Territories). No ENGVAR besides CanEng should even enter the conversation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll make sure to peruse the New York Times next time the whole Derry/Londonderry debacle comes up again. Red Slash 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the official spelling in English is without the diacritic, per Vrac's evidence. If it were not, then, yes, we'd use the diacritic, just as we do on thousands of articles with diacritics in the title. PS: I must have covered this ten dozen times in various RMs and other discussions. COMMONNAME applies to what the common name is in English (e.g. Quebec, vs. Province of Quebec vs. Quebec Province, whether with or without a diacritic), not how it is styled. Diacritics are a matter of style, as defined on Wikipedia, and determined by consulting reliable sources on the topic in question. Note that WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines defer to MOS on style matters. Whether to use the diacritic is not at all a matter of COMMONNAME analysis, or virtually no article on WP would have a diacritic in it's title; maybe Nestlé.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral—of course we use diacritics in English (naïve, Pokémon). "Québec" with a diacritic is not uncommon in English, but sans diacritic is far more common. We have to remember that (a) it is commonly spelt without a diacritic by the 600,000 native English speakers who call the province home; and (b) it is pronounced differently in English than it is in French, so the diacritic doesn't serve the function in English that it does in French (ditto Montréal). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No new move reason since all the previous discussions (see below). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The question of whether "Quebec" or "Québec" is the official name in English is actually completely irrelevant to the matter — Wikipedia does not rest on officialism for the sake of officialism. Rather, per WP:UE we use whatever form of a name is most likely to be recognized as the usual English name in actual real-world usage. There are certainly some cases (the textbook example is Parti Québécois) where standard English usage is to simply retain the original French form without translating or stripping the accent — but the province is generally spelled in English without the accent, and the city is generally known in English as Quebec City (also without the accent). Certainly there are exceptions where the accent is used in English in both names, but those are generally federal or provincial government sources which have their own internal style rules requiring them to rest on the official form — the accents aren't commonly used in English by anybody not bound by government officialese. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we default to the form most commonly seen in actual English usage — we can use the official form in the original language when that form is what's most commonly seen in English, as it is with the PQ and the Bloc Québécois, and per WP:CANFRENCH we also err on the side of "original French" in cases where there could be a dispute between multiple "common" English forms (e.g. Trois-Rivières vs. "Trois-Rivieres" vs. "Trois Rivières" vs. "Trois Rivieres" vs. "Three Rivers"), but the basic rule is that in a clean X vs. Y choice common trumps official rather than vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. as per MOS:CAFR --Moxy (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As you can see here the province is spelt "Quebec" on the map, whereas the city is spelt "Québec". Once again, you can see this here, where the only Canadian English spelling for the city is "Québec" According to the Government of Canada, "Quebec, the province, does not take an accent. Québec, the city, does. Montréal always has an accent". In Canadian English, the city and the province are distinguished by its having an accent or not. This difference cannot be transmitted when spoken however, which is why in informal writing or when speaking Canadians often use "Quebec City", however, when written the city should always simply be "Québec". If anything, this page move request should apply to the city wikipage, and not the province page, as the province is clearly "Quebec" in Canadian English. trackratte (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Here I see that the province page (http://www.gouv.qc.ca/EN/Pages/accueil.aspx) has it with the accent. It should be moved, if that is how it is spelled locally, and officially, as it apparently is. In ictu oculi's insistence on british google books, and british english being the standard (as opposed to Canadian English in this instance) doesn't hold bearing in this case, in my opinion. What on Earth does british english have to do with a Canadian topic? ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As Canadian French (Quebecois) is the only official language of the province, they always spell the name of the province in French whether it's in an English context or not. In English it doesn't take an accent, but the city always does. trackratte (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention I don't think the Quebec government should get the final say of how to spell the article's title since this is the English Wikipedia not the Quebec Wikipedia. Due to that I don't see any reason that we need to use local names. Wikipedia also is not forced to use official names otherwise United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Democratic People's Republic of Korea would have to be used. Granted those examples are not spelling issues but the main point is we are allowed to use names that are not official. Also. a shown earlier, the federal government does not use the proposed spelling which strongly indicates that Québec is not the name used by most English language speakers which I see as the main reason that the page should not be moved.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

See previous discussions on Quebec vs Québec here, here, here, here, and here. Next time someone proposes this move, let them first read these previous discussions. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Given all the failed previous attempts and the overwhelming opposition, perhaps consideration should be given to withdrawing this RM. Hwy43 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep it open, there is a similar discussion going on over at Spanish_treasure_fleet. ~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080306062605/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061127/quebec_motion_061127?s_name=&no_ads= to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061127/quebec_motion_061127?s_name=&no_ads=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060613195221/http://www.parl.gc.ca:80/information/library/PRBpubs/bp412-e.htm to http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp412-e.htm#B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110808030517/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/jeunesse/territoire/compa_superf_pays.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/jeunesse/territoire/compa_superf_pays.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707155005/http://www.arboquebecium.com/index.html to http://www.arboquebecium.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080105112126/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca:80/site/english/maps/environment/land/st_lawrence_lowlands.html to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/land/st_lawrence_lowlands.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807170704/http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/smc-msc/2008/s3_eng.html to http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/smc-msc/2008/s3_eng.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110409235832/http://www.cdpnq.gouv.qc.ca:80/index-en.htm to http://www.cdpnq.gouv.qc.ca/index-en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070402153735/http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca:80/english/charter/preamble.html to http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/preamble.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724054432/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061128.wnation28/BNStory/National/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061128.wnation28/BNStory/National/home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061129050254/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061127.wchong1127/BNStory/National to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061127.wchong1127/BNStory/National
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824174324/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/background/parliament39/motion-quebecnation.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/motion-quebecnation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070126111147/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2006/12/19/harper-motion.html?ref=rss to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/19/harper-motion.html?ref=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080501112831/http://www40.statcan.ca:80/l01/cst01/demo62f.htm to http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo62f.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060219133450/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca:80/salle-presse/communiq/2005/mars/mars0516a.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/salle-presse/communiq/2005/mars/mars0516a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100216090257/http://www.criaq.aero:80/Donnees/2006_MDEIE_Strategie.pdf to http://www.criaq.aero/Donnees/2006_MDEIE_Strategie.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110321162047/http://www.amq-inc.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=34 to http://www.amq-inc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=34
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125114405/http://www.cifq.qc.ca:80/html/francais/centre_mediatique/portrait.php to http://www.cifq.qc.ca/html/francais/centre_mediatique/portrait.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070910230852/http://www.er.uqam.ca:80/nobel/grip/dr/facq/contsoci.htm to http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/grip/dr/facq/contsoci.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706181403/http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/reg/4710-eng.htm to http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/reg/4710-eng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070617031904/http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca:80/mines/industrie/industrie-substances.jsp to http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/mines/industrie/industrie-substances.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706201736/http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/mines/industrie/gemmes/gemmes-diamant.jsp to http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/mines/industrie/gemmes/gemmes-diamant.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061229132012/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca:80/donstat/econm_finnc/conjn_econm/compr_inter/pdf/sommaire.pdf to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/econm_finnc/conjn_econm/compr_inter/pdf/sommaire.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110324073227/http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca:80/recherche/sciences-technologies/la-nasa-acquiert-une-camera-concue-a-ludem.html to http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/recherche/sciences-technologies/la-nasa-acquiert-une-camera-concue-a-ludem.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613021637/http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/en/commun/docs/charter.pdf to http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/en/commun/docs/charter.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110709072730/http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/ to http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100413163022/http://www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca:80/insectarium/toile/info_insectes/fiches/fic_fiche08_amiral.htm to http://www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca/insectarium/toile/info_insectes/fiches/fic_fiche08_amiral.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

Change the title to "Republic of Quebec". (And the french version of course) 99.241.201.126 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613195221/http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp412-e.htm#B to http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp412-e.htm#B
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071026003655/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007093 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007093
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071209000806/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001507 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001507
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930152830/http://www2.johnabbott.qc.ca/~geoscience/intro/Bryce/GoodesClimateMap22Ed%20_1_.pdf to http://www2.johnabbott.qc.ca/~geoscience/intro/Bryce/GoodesClimateMap22Ed%20_1_.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130709023232/http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca:80/Welcome_e.html to http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/Welcome_e.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706201853/http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/especes/nunavik/index.jsp to http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/especes/nunavik/index.jsp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706201909/http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/peche/poissons/index.jsp to http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/peche/poissons/index.jsp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110806083032/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0007300 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0007300
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110608081944/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006592 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006592
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706202410/http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?cat=ptype&cherche=DOCUMENT to http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?cat=ptype&cherche=DOCUMENT
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720023244/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0000029 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000029
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607203333/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0001842 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001842
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720043127/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003082 to http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003082
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402153735/http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/preamble.html to http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/preamble.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110806082957/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006123 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006123
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100102145936/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001869 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001869
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130728013918/http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/publications/resolutions/20031030_en.pdf to http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/publications/resolutions/20031030_en.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120210204607/http://www.lieutenant-gouverneur.qc.ca/roles-et-fonctions/role-constitutionnel-en.html to http://www.lieutenant-gouverneur.qc.ca/roles-et-fonctions/role-constitutionnel-en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110530011615/http://www.assnat.qc.ca:80/fr/patrimoine/lexique/b/index.html to http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/patrimoine/lexique/b/index.html#bicam
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110527124352/http://www.investquebec.com/en/index.aspx?rubrique=27 to http://www.investquebec.com/en/index.aspx?rubrique=27
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706163954/http://www.abitibiexpress.ca/Economie/Ressources-naturelles/2010-11-04/article-1923283/Encore-%26laquo%3Bdix-ans-difficiles%26raquo%3B-pour-l%26rsquo%3Bindustrie-forestiere/1 to http://www.abitibiexpress.ca/Economie/Ressources-naturelles/2010-11-04/article-1923283/Encore-%26laquo%3Bdix-ans-difficiles%26raquo%3B-pour-l%26rsquo%3Bindustrie-forestiere/1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105084331/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca:80/publications/referenc/qcem/qcem_ter_veg.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/referenc/qcem/qcem_ter_veg.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612111434/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/index_an.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/index_an.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120402145357/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/indicateurs/publications/pub_prov_par_hab.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/indicateurs/publications/pub_prov_par_hab.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120402145402/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/indicateurs/publications/pub_pays_total.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/indicateurs/publications/pub_pays_total.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120402145410/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/publications/points/points_publications_juin03.pdf to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/savoir/publications/points/points_publications_juin03.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718063207/http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/campus/prix-et-distinctions/20100518-olivier-daigle-nomme-personnalite-de-la-semaine-la-presse-radio-canada.html to http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/campus/prix-et-distinctions/20100518-olivier-daigle-nomme-personnalite-de-la-semaine-la-presse-radio-canada.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718063426/http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/campus/prix-et-distinctions/20100426-quebec-science-remet-le-prix-du-public-decouverte-de-lannee-2009-a-un-chercheur-detoiles.html to http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/campus/prix-et-distinctions/20100426-quebec-science-remet-le-prix-du-public-decouverte-de-lannee-2009-a-un-chercheur-detoiles.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012210055/http://stat.gouv.qc.ca:80/publications/referenc/qcem/qcem_eco_tra.htm to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/referenc/qcem/qcem_eco_tra.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110806082946/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0000031 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0000031
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718175149/http://www.adisq.com/assoc-profil.html to http://www.adisq.com/assoc-profil.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706201401/http://www.apftq.qc.ca/fr/apftq/mission.asp to http://www.apftq.qc.ca/fr/apftq/mission.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706202316/http://radiovision.ca/arcq/ to http://radiovision.ca/arcq/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706205825/http://www.tohu.ca/en/TOHU/ to http://www.tohu.ca/en/TOHU/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Climate map

QC koppen

Hello, I just uploaded a climate map for Quebec, and I was wondering if there were any Francophones here who might be able to help me create a French version. If you could send me translations of the text in the map, I'd be happy to translate the text and upload a French version for the French wikipedia article on Quebec. Thanks! Redtitan (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/eas-aes.nsf/vwapj/srreo200401e.PDF/$FILE/srreo200401e.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409085237/http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1979/1979canlii21/1979canlii21.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1979/1979canlii21/1979canlii21.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009212247/http://www.drapeau.gouv.qc.ca:80/ to http://www.drapeau.gouv.qc.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Origin

The Ethnic origin table is way wrong the numbers of Québecers in Québec ins't only of 2%. The table should be delete and replace with accurate data. see Statistic canada web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.144.50 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Section on climate not internally consistent.

The section on Climate variously says that Quebec has either 3 or 4 climate areas. Somebody with more knowledge than me should edit to be more internally consistent - in other words, say that Quebec has 3 climate zones or say that Quebec has 4 climate zones, but not both.

The first paragraph of the section (as of Oct 19, 2017) says "Quebec has three main climate regions... humid continental..., subarctic..., [and] arctic...." The fourth paragraph of the section reads differently: "Quebec is divided into four climatic zones: arctic, subarctic, humid continental and East maritime."

I recognize that there may be different systems for judging climate, but the lack of consistency just makes the section confusing. If under one climate system, eastern Quebec has an East maritime climate and under another it doesn't, that's OK, but the section should explain and clarify.

Techielaw (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request 10 November 2017

There is a single use of trans_title which causes a CS1 Error. It should be changed to trans-title. Regards, 2A04:4540:110A:6C01:791F:F063:4661:2B2C (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you. Your work in many pages to fix this issue is appreciated too.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61CLwUTZC?url=http://www.iedm.org/fr/node/2904 to http://www.iedm.org/main/show_editorials_fr.php?editorials_id=604
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120041636/http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/qc/mingan/index_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/qc/mingan/index_e.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ici.radio-canada.ca/jeunesse/explorateur/histoire/index.asp?no_contenu=7253
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61CM5t7K2?url=http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/biodiv/fr/mammiferes/marins.html to http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/biodiv/fr/mammiferes/marins.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312082028/http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt56b-eng.htm to http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt56b-eng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812175444/http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/economie/quebec/201107/28/01-4421562-dette-le-quebec-cancre-dune-classe-surdouee.php to http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/economie/quebec/201107/28/01-4421562-dette-le-quebec-cancre-dune-classe-surdouee.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/economie/quebec/201007/30/01-4302438-leconomie-du-savoir-en-mutation-au-quebec.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025170436/http://lasentinelle.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=141789&id=999 to http://lasentinelle.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=141789&id=999
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113234955/http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/grand_public/vehicules_promenade/reseau_routier to http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/grand_public/vehicules_promenade/reseau_routier
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815150809/http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/entreprises/transport_aerien to http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/entreprises/transport_aerien
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309204726/http://www.lesjutra.ca/apropos.php to http://www.lesjutra.ca/apropos.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006084636/http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/crit/crit2_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/crit/crit2_e.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929084947/http://www.discoverthequebec.ca/ to http://www.discoverthequebec.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

---

• Quebec → Quebec (province)
• Quebec (disambiguation) → Quebec

– The city is officially known as Quebec. It can cause confusion between the province and the city. I believe there is no primary topic for this subject. This is similar to the discussion we have on the primary topic situation we had on New York. 2601:183:101:58D0:DDA2:4C76:3D0B:BC78 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose moves. Though this certainly appears on the surface to be a repeat of the New York situation, it isn't quite as simple as that. The city is occasionally called Quebec without a qualifier in reliable sources, but not to the same extent as New York, so I don't believe these moves to be necessary. ONR (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not even close. Srnec (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The City is Ville de Quebec, or Quebec City in English https://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/en/index.aspx. Our article is at Quebec City, so what are we disambiguating from? Anyone looking for the city will see the note and link at the start of the article. No other Canadian province uses this form of disambiguation in the title. Meters (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary disambig. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – It is Quebec City ad Quebec, just like New York and New York City. CookieMonster755✉ 02:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Cookie Monster. New York was a bad move. This extends the idea to a situation where it is even harder to justify. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Question - If this discussion is closed without a consensus to move both pages, should I open up a discussion proposing New York (state) be moved back to New York as the primary topic? --2601:183:101:58D0:3545:2E73:437A:CAC9 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about that since several people here are arguing that Quebec City is referred to as Quebec far less of then New York City is referred to as New York so I don’t see a consensus against moving this article as evidence that the New York (State) article needs to be moved. Each case needs to be evaluated on their own merits.--76.65.41.59 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is bad logic. We wouldn't title Mexico "Mexico (country)" because there is a city called Mexico City. DrJenkins365 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

It also shares maritime borders with Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia should be New Brunswick. 192.64.57.177 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Question: are the waters between Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Cape Breton Island considered a provincial maritime border? For that matter are the waters between the Maggies and Prince Edward Island? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The previous sentence says that it shares a border with New Brunswick. The only provinces that should be in the subsequent sentences are ones with maritime borders only. I looked for a map of Canada showing maritime borders between provinces but was unable to find one (I didn't look that hard). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical error

TimHalpert (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Error in the New France section: "They establishing fur trading forts on..."

Thanks for the suggestion, TimHalpert! I've fixed the sentence for you. Just so you know, if you would like to request changes to an article that you can't edit yourself, you can use the {{edit semiprotected}} template, which will tag your request and add it to a list that other users can check for pending requests. The list is here in case you're interested. Thanks for your contributions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Add 'Twinning and covenants' section

Nuevo León points Québec as a twin/covenant state, because they both share a huge amount of students and professional workers between themselves. I would like to leave it as a 2-way reference. Hectormgerardo (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

h

h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:C60:4AAD:D4C3:BF75:5886:2745 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Quebec does not border Nova Scotia but it does border New Brunswick Thanks. 209.52.88.180 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Maritime borders are different from land borders, in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aerospace Industry

An inset graphic shows a model of a modern jetliner with a caption that begins like this: Since 1856, Quebec has established itself as a pioneer of modern aerospace industry. Huh? Quebec had an aerospace industry back before the 1903 invention of the airplane? The reference points to "HISTOIRE DE L'AÉRONAUTIQUE AU QUÉBEC," which says this: Si la première ascension libre d’un ballon avec passagers au Canada a lieu à Montréal en 1856, il faut attendre le début du XX ième siècle pour voir apparaître les premiers aéroplanes au Québec, comme dans le reste du monde. I don't read French, but my internet-translation has this as If the first free ascent of a balloon with passengers in Canada took place in Montreal in 1856, it was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the first airplanes appeared in Quebec, as in the rest of the world. It doesn't say anything about an aerospace industry in Quebec back in 1856. Could somebody who reads French come up with a more accurate caption for this graphic? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The boundary between Quebec and Labrador

When did the Privy Council of the United Kingdom establish the boundary between Quebec and Labrador? Peter Horn User talk 21:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Labrador#Border dispute Peter Horn User talk 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong pronounciation in Intro (Its not "Kwabec", its pronounced "Kebec")

In the intro, the uncommon pronouciation "Kwabec" is given in IPA and the common pronouciation "Kebec" is not presented at all. "Kebec" should be included and presented first, before "Kwabec" and the French "Québec". Safyrr (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup time

Think its time we take a look at helping cleanup this article...needs lots of sources...proper sources....cleanup of charts to pross all over...image cleanup to helpl with accessibility .trim gigantic lead..merger of one sentence sections ... etc..... Will post help message at project page.--Moxy- 22:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Moxy: went ahead and condensed the lead over in my sandbox (User:WildComet/sandbox/Quebec rewrite), sans sources, which I can look into improving if people like this. As for the text, Government and politics definitely also needs a rewrite. WildComet (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! still a bit long but much better....added lets see if there is any push back. Sources not needed all in prose of the article anyways.-- Moxy- 12:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. WildComet (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Québec

Bonjour, le nom de la province est « Québec » et non « Quebec ». — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.8.2.186 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The above recommendation has gone unanswered; the Canadian Style does indeed specify that Québec should be spelled with l'accent aigu in English, and as the page is written in Canadian English I propose “reversing” the redirection of this page to Québec. Nebes (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is the federal government style guide really appropriate though - it's rather political. What matters is common usage. Look in any newspaper, there's no accent. Refer for example to The Globe and Mail style guide here which has no accent. Or better yet, our OWN style guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles which is very clear there shouldn't be an accent. Also refer to previous discussions here, most recently at Talk:Quebec/Archive 8#Edit Request: Use proper accents Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The name of the country is the name of the country. If the Americans and British and other countries wish to disregard the proper, correct spelling, that’s on them, but shouldn’t a neutral representative use the name by which we call ourselves? There is no circumstance under which there is no accent on Québec; be it the province or the city. The same goes for Montréal. The accent is on the city logo. Be sensitive for once in your lives Alehanro999 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"The name of the country is the name of the country." But the names of countries change in different languages. The French speak and write about Les États-Unis and L'Allemagne and L'Écosse, which is very different from what the inhabitants of those countries themselves use. So it is in English. Try to be objective (I won't add "for once in your lives", not wanting to be discourteous). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.39.58 (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you just did. Was that passive-aggessive attitude productive? Please, let's be more respectful to one another. 49.184.212.125 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I said "try being objective" in this single case. What they do in the rest of their lives I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by METRANGOLO1 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Easter eggs

There were far to many Easter eggs. That is links to the French language Wikipedia. Links like that should not be hidden inline and I've converted them to {{Interlanguage link}}. Some of them were sending readers to blank pages on the French language Wikipedia and some to pages where we already have one. One particularly sloppy link was to fr:Francais québécois, which doesn't exist because the article is at fr:Français québécois and we have an English article at Quebec French. There seems to be an attempt to insert French even when there is a valid English term. I found tribunaux administratifs for example and some others where I was unsure of the correct translation. There was a link to sugar shack hidden be being piped with cabane à sucre. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Quebec as a nation

Two editors have added detailed explanations to the lead about Quebec being a "nation". Quebec's "nationhood" is symbolic, and including a detailed explanation about it in the lead may mislead readers. Quebec's status as a nation is discussed within the article. The following was added to the second sentence of the lead by User:Safyrr:

Quebec itself is said by many to be a nation. This statement is supported by many people, including politicians like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the Canadian House of Commons as a result of a symbolic motion passed in 2006 which states "That this House recognizes that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada". Linguistic and cultural differences, as well as vague definitions, have resulted in different interpretations of the 2006 motion, which themselves constitute a source of tension in discussions about the status of Quebec. There exists differences between the terms "nation" and "country" as well as "Québécois" and "Quebecer" that are often misunderstood. All of these terms also have different definitions in French. For example, "country" in French is a more flexible term that can either refer to a region, the territory of a nation or a sovereign entity. The word "nation" in French refers to a group of people living on the same territory whom constitute a political entity and whom are aware of their shared history, culture and values. Finally, in English, "Québécois" refers solely to residents of Quebec with French Canadian ancestry and "Quebecer" is any resident of Quebec. In French, "Québécois" refers generally to residents and the word "Quebecer" doesn't exist.

References

The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677 It is clear that an explanation about different viewpoints between communities, including French and English communities, needs to be included within the intro since the status of Quebec is such an important and contentious topic. It doesn't need to be detailed, but simply present. To not mention the varied opinions about how or why Quebec would or would not constitute a nation (an important thing for a territory to be as this affects how others will see it and interact with it) may be misleading the reader. Why would Quebec's page (especially the introductory paragraph) be so prone to vandalism otherwise? The French article states that Quebec is a nation in the first sentence and the French article is not prone to often being modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safyrr (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Exact I already stated years ago (in 2009) that Quebec is a nation. Mentionning only the house of commons and not the entire Quebec politic and the opinion of the quebec gouv is misleading and clearly political. Obviously the french version differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Catholicism

@Freshacconci: The information in Catholicism has been removed without proper cause or justification. Same as with in the comedy section. The culture and religion of Quebec are some of the most important aspects of Quebec and should not be removed on a whim. The information is also sourced and links to their respective articles that go into more detail. Safyrr (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not threaten me on my talk page again. I reverted you in good faith and within Wiki policy. It is up to you to prove your case here, rather than edit warring. Again, I reverted you based on the opinions of two editors. The comedy section is unsourced, poorly written, and violates WP:NPOV. freshacconci (✉) 15:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Freshacconci: I have posted a warning about edit warring on your talk page because you reverted twice on the same page within a 24 hour period. If you would like to not receive this message again, then don't do it again. The opinions of two editors argument is mute as this text is directly translated from the French version of the page. What is the opinion of two random editors on the English wikipedia worth against those of the entire French wikipedia who have maintained this text as it is for years? As for Proving the case, what are you looking for here? Evidence that the catholic church or comedy is an important Québécois element? Would you like me to copy-paste all of the sources the text references so that you can see them in a nice little list? I would like you to prove how they are poorly written or unsourced. Safyrr (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and stop threatening other editors. Discuss your case here and do not comment on other editors. This is not your article (see WP:OWN). freshacconci (✉) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Freshacconci: You have not responded to anything I have written... You are being aggressive here by not justifying your behaviour, not talking rationality, spamming my talk page and telling lies (since when is there a third editor, for example). I also havent threatened any editors? So, I'm confused here? And yes, it is not your article, Freshacconci. Are you unable to prove POV, unsourced material or poorly written material? Because I can give you all the references you may need, just let me know what you want to see Safyrr (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

We are cleaning up the article this weekend.....lots of copy-pasting to fix...Mos problems....image layout problems.....and most serious lack of sources all over.Moxy- 22:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Going to ask the project to help this weekend ....cant have a province article this bad.Moxy- 11:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the Geography section under hydrography, please mention that the city of Montreal is located on the Island of Montreal in parenthesis. It is not mentioned here and it is important to note this.8.38.210.26 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 18:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Amerindian

Why is Amerindian and Inuits being used. Amerindian is a redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas which will be confusing to general reader as the article could be discussing any indigenous peoples in the Americas. While Amerindian may be common in Quebec this is an article for the general reader so First Nations or indigenous is better. Inuits does not exist in English. See Inuit, Inuk (Linguistic recommendation from the Translation Bureau).

I noticed a few other odd things such as using the French language version of Stats Canada when there is an English version available. What is the purpose of the the separate reference section on the laws? That's not something seen on other articles. Although it did show that there are three links to Constitution Act, 1867 which, being Wikipedia, is not a reliable source nor is the information to be found at that article. Some of the section headers were incorrect as well. It should be "Further reading" for example. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We have mass random copypasting all over.....article in desperate need of cleanup.Moxy- 12:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's from the French language Wikipedia. I tried fixing a while back but most got reverted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wondering if we should restore before all the crap was added.--Moxy- 12:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I dont understand how one thinks indigenous people is better. There are indigenous people literally all over the world. Amerindians are "Indians" specific to North America, and Inuits only exist in North America as well, and that is the proper name for these people. I also dont understand how Inuit is supposedly a non-English word, the link is right here: Inuit? It is not unusual for proper terms to be used, the New Zealand article uses Māori instead of indigenous people, for example. Safyrr (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

should follow the legal terms used in Canada and not the anthropological term used for all of the Americas......Best not uses the terms used in a badly sourced article for another Wiki.Moxy- 15:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: Please provide source that this is the legal term used in Canada. Also, what badly sourced article are you talking about? Safyrr (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Canada uses the word "Indian" in its legislation for these people (https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-status). So, if one wants to actually be 100% accurate to Canada's legal definitions, the sections should refer to Indians. Safyrr (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

sensitive topic that should use normal terms.Moxy- 00:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Inuit" wasn't an English term. I said that "Inuits" isn't an English term and provided a reference. Amerindian is not specific to North America as it is a redirect to indigenous peoples of the Americas but the article isn't referring to indigenous peoples of South America or Mexico or the Caribbean or even the United States. You could use "First Nations, Inuit and Métis" or Indigenous Canadians". Using indigenous isn't a problem as long as it is explained, and I doubt that anyone reading this article is going to think that indigenous is talking about Māori people or Bantu peoples. By the way if you look at Indigenous peoples of the Americas there is a line "The term Amerindian (a blend of "American and Indian") and its cognates find preferred use in scientific contexts and in Quebec, the Guianas, and the English-speaking Caribbean.[38][39][40][41]" and I expect one of those sources could be used here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Province of Canada: Population imbalance and effect on representation.

@Safyrr: Hi Safyrr, this is the second point we're discussing in the edits. The basic point is that the issue of over- and under- representation shifted between the two Canadas during the first 20 years of the Union. Originally, Canada West was over-represented in the Assembly (ie had more seats than its population would warrant on a strict numerical basis) and Canada East was under-represented (had fewer seats than its population would warrant).

However, in the next 20 years, the population of Canada West grew more rapidly than the population of Canada East, so that by the census of 1861, Canada West was now under-represented, and Canada East was now over-represented in the Assembly. That became a major political issue, as Brown and the Reform-Grit group argued that Canada East's over-representation gave the French-Canadians a disproportionate influence on Canada West's affairs.

Here's the numbers. The numbers for 1841 are from the Canadian Encyclopedia article on the Province of Canada. The numbers for 1852 and 1861 are from this Library and Archives Canada page: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4064809-eng.htm#part3.

• 1841: Canada East's population was 670,000, and it had 42 seats. That meant each member represented on average 15,952 people.
• 1841: Canada West's population was 480,000, so each member represented on average 11,429 people. Canada West was over-represented in the Assembly, and Canada East was under-represented.
• 1852: Canada East's population was 890,261, and it still had 42 seats, so each member represented 19,530 people.
• 1852: Canada West's population was 952,004, with 42 seats, so each member represented 22,667 people. Now it's Canada East that is over-represented (has more seats than its population entitles it to), and Canada West that is under-represented (has fewer seats than its population would entitle it to).
• 1861: Canada East's population is now 1,110,664. The number of seats for each region has been increased to 65, so now each member represents an average of 17,087 people.
• 1861: Canada West's population is now 1,396,091, with 65 seats, so now each member represents 21,478 people. Canada East is still over-represented, and Canada West is still under-represented.

Since the point in the article where we are disagreeing is talking about the period after major British immigration, that means it's the period when Canada West is under-represented. Would be pleased to discuss further. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Interesting, I didn't know that both parties experienced under and over-representation. I think it would be a good idea to use your source to put into the text that Canada East started out under-represented, but finished over-represented, and that in both cases it was a problem. What do you think? Safyrr (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

George Brown, Clear Gits and Rep by Pop

@Safyrr: Hi Safyrr, there are two different issues we're discussing in our edits, so I'm making two replies. This one is to your question about Clear Grits and rep by pop. I'm afraid I condensed my comment a bit when I made the edit. In the 1850s, there were at least three different groups in Canada West who had inherited the Reform mantle: the moderates, the Brownites, and the Clear Grits. The moderate Reformers were the successors to Baldwain. However, the Brownites and the Clear Grits thought that the mods weren't going far enough, fast enough. The Brownites, led by George Brown (Canadian politician), emphasised the population imbalance and under-representation of Canada West as a result of population growth (more on that in the next post). The Clear Grits were almost republican in their approach; didn't like the appointed Legislative Council; wanted it elected. The leader of that faction was David Christie (politician), who is credited with explain the "Grit" nickname: "all sand and no dirt, clear grit all the way through". The Grits and the Brownites gradually merged, with Brown as the leader. Rep by pop was one of his major platform issues, and it became one for the new Reform-Grit group as a whole. Check out the Dictionary of Canadian Biography for the bios of Brown and Christie for more details than I can give here. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I see... It also seemed weird to me that Rep by Pop would be an issue if Canada East was under-represented, but if Canada West was under-represented towards the end it makes more sense Safyrr (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Typo

There is a misspelling in the Grande Noirceur section, where "literature" is spelled "litterature". It should be corrected. 142.105.248.226 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 04:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Should History of Quebec be a separate article?

This article is very long, and I wonder if the history section could be split into a separate article? The history section is very detailed and lengthy, and I wonder if it merits being a separate article in its own right?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Two separate articles related to history of Quebec already exist. The content on this article's section has been copied from the main article of History of Quebec. This issue of it being too long can be solved by replacing the content of the section with an excerpt.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation style

I propose to standardize and streamline the citation formatting, using {{cite}}-family templates for full citations and {{sfn}} for short. As per WP:CITEVAR, I am posting here to see if there are any objections. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't use those cite formats for citations of legislation. Preferred template is Template:Cite canlaw. Trying to shoe-horn legislation into cite templates designed for books and articles results in inaccurate and sometimes misleading cites. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Size issue needs attention

This article currently ranks 51st among all the articles on Wikipedia in terms of its size - a massive ‎418,357 bytes. It is too long and also suffers from being bloated. This can cause navigation, editing and also template issues further down the road, plus also making it difficult for readers to gather information.

I have been going through it and the main reason for the size issue is that all the information in all of the sections has been copied from the associated main articles. This might have been done by editors when the article was in its infancy but it is not a standard or good practice now. The better way is to link excerpts from the main articles in the sections. This reduces the size of article/sections and is also easier for readers, anyone interested in more information can just click on the main article linked.

This should be done sooner, it will also solve the too many sections issue. Then editors can focus on the rewriting issue. Calling top editors of this article who are still active, @Moxy, Safyrr, CambridgeBayWeather, Indefatigable, and Freshacconci:. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Mass amount of copy paste happened this year.Moxy- 12:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a surprise. Was a consensus reached to do that? If not, did other editors not object to it or no one noticed it while it happened? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We did just overwhelmed see #Amerindian for one of the talks.Moxy- 03:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, who reverted your edits? @CambridgeBayWeather:? @Moxy:, could you please point to the version before mass copypasting was done? It is also strange that you noticed this issue two months ago but no actions seem to have been taken until now. Unless we have reasonable objections, I think we should be bold enough and start with cleanup, followed by watching the page closely for some time after to prevent another state like this again. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 08:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT:Just searched through the archives and it seems there was a cleanup attempt back in May and you asked the project for help in June, was some progress made? I can only wonder what the state of the article was back then if it still needs so much work at present.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 08:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not that there was any wholescale reversion just a lot of material added to the extent that it is now difficult to edit the page because of the size. Here's my edits from last May. Just minor cleanup stuff that I usually do. At one point there were multiple things like [[:fr:Humour québécois|comedy shows]] which should be {{ill|Comedy in Quebec|lt=homegrown humour|fr|Humour québécois}}. Readers of the English language Wikipedia should not be sent the French language as a surprise. In some cases the link was to the French Wikipedia when the English Wikipedia has a article. Moxy already pointed out the Amerindian problem. It may be common in Quebec but it isn't outside of that and the link goes to Indigenous peoples of the Americas which isn't helpful. I also noticed that there was some usage of "é" where the English "e" should have been. While Québécois people uses "é" correctly having [[Quebec City|Québec]] or [[Montreal|Montréal]] isn't. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Amerindian" or "Améridien" is antiquated. The current word is "aborignal" or "autochtone".

Agree this article is way too long and has too many sections and subsections. It's also full of poorly translated English, with awkward turns of phrase and stylistic errors and much of it reads like original research and opinion. Many sources are difficult to verify, as they are in French and no quotes are given. According to English Wikipedia policy, non-English references are permitted, but English sources are prefered.[24] It's hard to know where to begin, but almost every section needs material moved to other pages. In particular, the history section contains 19 sections and subsections, which is probably too much even for the article. It is by far the worst. I suggest a full rewrite. soulscanner (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wanting to note here that I've restored some of the recent removals. I fully agree that the size of the article is a problem, and commit to doing considerable work to condense it. However, I don't think an excerpt-based approach is the best solution, and some of the content that was removed was not (but should have been) summarized here. More to come. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've completed a major rewrite of the article to reduce its size and reorganize the content. Obviously there are still many areas where citations are lacking, but before proceeding with that I'm looking for input on organization and weight. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic.Moxy- 00:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bering land bridge

The Bering land bridge is completely off topic in this article - we shouldn't be mentioning it at all. There are many other articles in this encyclopedia that cover this. This article is about Quebec, so it should be focused on when the current territory of Quebec was first peopled. I doubt that the article on France mentions the theorized date when Homo sapiens first reached eastern Europe from Anatolia. Indefatigable (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Most dictionaries irrespective of the region (e.g Chambers, Collins, Oxford, Longman, Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com) give the ‘kwih-BEK’ pronuncitation first (ther possibilities sometimes given are: ‘kwə-BEK,’‘kih-BEK,’‘kə-BEK,’ ‘keh-BEK,’ ‘kee-BEK’ and ‘kay-BEK’) and i believe this should also be so in this article. No reference is given for the pronunciations mentioned, although they appear to be taken from the Lexico US English dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maciuf (talk • contribs) 13:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

External relations with the United States

The US external relations page has a few lines that are at best confusing and at worst false. These lines are problematic mainly because US relations with Quebec are handled through the federal state of Canada. That is to say, as far as some of these topic are concerned, the US has relations with Canada, not Quebec. Below are some specific examples.

"Quebec has several economic and military pacts with the U.S. like NAFTA, NORAD, etc."

As a matter of fact, Quebec is not party to NORAD or NAFTA (now USMCA). Canada is. To say that Quebec has pacts with the US is simply false. This claim in the article also lacks a citation.

"Quebec's closest partner is the United States of America."

The United States does not partner with Quebec. With any state-to-state diplomacy, especially between countries as close as the US and Canada, it would be inappropriate for a national, sovereign government of one country to deal with the provincial government of another, rather than its peer national government

"such as the Québécois government borrowing from Wall Street"

This phrasing is unprofessional. The Quebec government did not borrow from "Wall Street." It may have borrowed from individual financial institutions, but that should be stated instead. Or saying "the government borrowed from American banks" would also be more appropriate.

On top of this, many of the claims in this paragraph lack citations.

I think this paragraph should be reduced and more clearly state the relationship between the US and Canada as it concerns Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerFritzBauer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• CM 2019-08 024.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)