Talk:Quebec

Template:WP1.0

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)

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)

. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

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)