Talk:Quebec

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)

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.

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)