Talk:Quebec

Template:WP1.0

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)

Lead change for distinct nation

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)

.

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)

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)