Talk:Quebec

2nd paragraph (so large and reads badly)

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

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

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

Quebec Referendum

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

Returning to the "Quebecois nation" issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Merriam-Webster:

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

2, archaic : group, aggregation

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

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

G. Csikos, 25 November 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, here's a reference: [1]:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognised by whom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montreal

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

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

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

16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Flag

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

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

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

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Quebec Fertility

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

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

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

Official language (fair compromise)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the law, it is stated that French is official and English is not given this status in the province of Quebec- therefore, French is the only official language. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 133 of the BNA:

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

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

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

16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, just because successive governments (usually UN or PQ) have tried to erase the co-equal status of English in the legislature and courts does not make it valid. Please READ the Blaikie judgements (1979 and 1981). G. Csikos, 28 January 2008.

French (the only official language in Québec)

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

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

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

Quebec or "Province of Quebec"?

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

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

Hello Ramdrake.

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

short-form name: Quebec.

These are facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does this idea come from?

Province of Ontario reference

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

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

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

Province of Saskatchewan reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we go eh ...

Province of Québec/Province de Québec Reference(s)

(English) Province of Québec

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

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

(French) Province de Québec

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

"Fédération des comités de parents de la Province de Québec

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

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

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

About the accent

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

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

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