Talk:Québécois (word)/Archive 3

Tags added

Two points:

• Le Québec aux Québécois is not quoted from any source, and the translation of Québécois in French by Québécois in English rather than by Quebecers is POV.
• Opinion columns by Lysiane Gagnon are not a reliable source. Also, although the Petit Robert does give that definition, many examples of good dictionaries have been mentioned on this page that do not define Québécois in French as having an additional meaning of "francophone Quebecer". So there is a contradiction between sources here. Joeldl (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

* Added scholarly sources on "Le Quebec aux Quebecois" with full quotes. One source is from French Canada, another from English Canada. Let me know if you want more. --Soulscanner (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

* Many good dictionaries are incomplete or abridged. This article reviews all the definitions, and the important political and social context behind these definitions. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I insist that the inclusion of "Le Québec aux Québécois is not instructive as to the way the term Québécois is used. It is merely there to make a comment on Quebecers' supposed intolerance, especially with the POV translation as "Québécois" instead of "Quebecers". It is akin to "illustrating" the use of the term "English" with a sentence like "You're not really English if you support the Pakistani cricket team". Such inclusion doesn't illustrate the meaning of the word, it simply singles out a perhaps objectionable utterance in which it appears, but in which the meaning of the word itself is unremarkable. Please do not remove dispute tags until there is consensus to do so.

As for dictionary meanings, the entry for Québécois in Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui (from Les Éditions Le Robert) is lengthy, much longer than the one in Le Robert, and yet it doesn't make any mention of this meaning. I do not believe this is an oversight. It does give Québécois francophones and Québécois anglophones and refers readers to the entries for Franco-Québécois and Anglo-Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

* I think the expression "Le Quebec aux Quebecois" has considerable more significance and historical importance that comments on Pakistani identity and cricket. It is a well known expression that appears often in historical, philisophical political, and sociological literature. It is exactly the kind of the statement where the political and sociological nuances of this words meaning come into play, and exactly why this article is needed.

* Originally, the tag was added becasue there were no referenced sources that documented usage of the term. I provided aademic, verifiable sources and you changed your reasons. You claim bad faith on my part here. You say I'm putting this here just to make French Canadians look bad. That's not true. It's her because the statement is well know, but poorly understood, and needs to be understood in its full sociological, historical, and political context. You cannot add a tag based on the assumption of bad faith. You can question the use of the term, you can question the relevance of the term, or how the term is presented. Comment on the content of the article, not the usnsubstantiated motivations of the author. --Soulscanner (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there an infobox here again? The responses to Question 1 above were practically unanimous. It was agreed there was consensus. Who has said they wanted the infobox back? Joeldl (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I'll remember to check here periodically. –Pomte 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Joeldl (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not put it there, but I do notice that the stub of French-speaking Quebecer is going neglected. Maybe it should be deleted. --Soulscanner (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stubs are created to grow over time, so if you agree with the legitimacy of the article, it should be kept. –Pomte 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm questioning the legitimacy of that page. My specific issue with the article is that it was argued that the infobox be deleted from this page and put there, as it is on English-speaking Quebecer, French Canadian, or [[Franco-Ontarian]. Hence the purpose of that page seems primarily to keep the infobox off of this page as opposed to writing an informative article on the subject. Hence the existance of that page seems more strategic than anything else. --Soulscanner (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lysiane Gagnon a credible source

Lysiane Gagnon was the editor of Quebec's largest French-Language daily newspaper. She is a perfectly credible source to comment on how language is used in the province. I can't think of a better source to comment on how language is used in daily intellectual life than a newspaper editor. If you are going to challenge a long-standing consensus on her credibility, you need to base it on facts rather than you disagreeing with her. Lets find some sources that contradict her claims rather than spouting personal opinion. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. Please do not remove the tags until there is consensus to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeldl (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in wikipedia policies that considers opinion pieces by professional newspaper editors unreliable, especially when they are commenting on language usage. Unreliable sources come from unpublished sources, or unreliable, marginal figures. In this case, it is the facts listed in the article (not the opinions) that lend context and background that are missing from the dictionary definition. You cannot tag a source just because you'd rather not have people read it. In this case, it is particularly relevant since we have a long-time editor commenting on the way the word "quebecois" is used in Quebec in both English and French. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is reliable as an indication of her personal opinion. That's all. Joeldl (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It documents usage of the word from a reliable source from a newspaper editor and professor of journalism, and backs up the defintion in the dictionary that you said does not exist. You are clearly pushing your own POV becasue you simply do not like this usage; however, the sources prove that this usage exists and is common. If you cannot accept the opinion of a professor of journalism and the editor of Quebec's largest newspaper, who's documentation can you trust? --soulscanner (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the English article any more. Maybe you can provide the quote. In any case, the title of the article is "There's no Quebec nation." According to your theory, we should just take this at face value as an incontrovertible truth since she's a respected professor of journalism. Joeldl (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that she documents a usage of the word Quebecois in French (Quebecois as neing "French Canadian"), that it is corroborated by a dictionary, and that she has the scholarly authority to make that judgement. Neither you nor I have that authority. Her opinion counts more than yours or mine. --soulscanner (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

anyone notice that the french version of this page is very clear? and the definition cause problem only to canadians who refuse the fact that we are not canadian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.54.47 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quebecois nation

Please specify which view point is being neglected and add it to the article. I have no objection to adding other viewpoints on the Quebecois nation issue, provided that they are well documented. Otherwise, Please remove the tag. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Many commentators have disagreed with the Prime Minister's interpretation of the resolution. This section only gives his view. It is not my responsibility to add the other views. If nothing is added, the section will still be unbalanced. Also, if you do add competing views, please do not remove the tag until there is consensus to do so, since there may not be agreement that the section has become balanced. Joeldl (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to act in good faith and explain which views are neccessary to include, and preferably, add them yourself. Other editors cannot guess what these are. The Prime Minister's view is relevant, of course, because he put forward the motion. However, there is the potential for 1000 different views on this. If you put on a neutrality tag in good faith, it is because you are aware of other relevant viewpoints that are not listed there. If you are editing in good faith, then it is your responsibility to enter into a dialogue and explain what those views are and explain who holds them. If you do not, then you are not editing in good faith. Please indicate which POVs are necessary to balance the section, and we will work together to add them remove the neutrality tag. I can add the view of Gilles Duceppe, as he put forward a similar motion to Harper's that in fact precipitated Harper's motion. We can add the view of Stephane Dion, who had a hand in drafting the motion. One of the sources listed in the readings is that of constitutional lawyer Julius Grey. Would these viewpoints be enough to balance the section? Or are there others that you wish to see included? Please supply references. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ambiguous" meaning of québécois in Bloc québécois and Parti québécois

The idea that the meaning is anything other than "relating to Quebec" is extremely doubtful, and certainly unsourced. Both parties have non-French-Canadian MNAs/MPs, and profess a civic and not ethnic form of nationalism. How one could genuinely think there is any ambiguity there is beyond me. This idea is POV because it attempts to paint Quebec nationalism as essentially based on ethnicity - a theme that is exaggerated in this article. Joeldl (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The definition is ambiguous, but there is no need overemphasize it. --Soulscanner (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Le Quebec aux Quebecois

This term is included NOT to illustrate usage (this is not a dictionary page), but because it is an important term in the context Quebec history, politics, society, identity. It occurs often in the English-speaking media and academic texts,and deserves to have the context in which it is used to described so that people understand why it is significant and contraversial. The fact that it is contraversial makes it all the more noteworthy in the context of this article, as it shows how the ambiguity of the word can be interpreted differently depending on who is using and that it translates poorly and awkwardly (which is why it is rarely translated in academic, media, or popular usage). It is complex, and well worth describing. I deliberately chose sources written in English by francophone nationalists so as to avoid spurious accusation of being anti-francophone and anti-nationalist, as I know these personal insults have been hurled here before those who wish to delete the page. The tags have been put here to discredit the page, not to improve it, and could be considered vandalism. --Soulscanner (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I've restored some deletions that I did not notice before. There are now two sections on usage, one showing typical usage, and one showing special idioms that include Quebecois, and that appear in both English and French (mosly because they do not translate well). Some of these are contraversial and unpopular to some, but they do exist and I think they are defined fairly. Just because you do not like them, does not mean they are irrelvant or POV. --Soulscanner (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Because the interpretation of this slogan is somewhat controversial, it is worth explaining its different possible meanings. A simple word-for-word translation does not do it. I added an extra sentence explaining its usage.

Improper archiving of the talk page

Can somebody more familiar than me correct this improper archiving of the talk page? A new page is supposed to be created and the material copied there as opposed to the entire page being renamed and a new talk page created - this in effect erases the entire modification history of the original page, and is against GFDL guidelines on top of everything. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a valid procedure; see Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure. The history is intact on the archive page. A problem with copy and paste moves is that it becomes harder to verify the edit history across the two pages. –Pomte 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I muffed up a step, but managed to fix it. I couldn't figure out the instructions at the help page. --Soulscanner (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to Québécois people

Should this article maybe be moved to Québécois people to avoid the confusion that led to its AFD? This is that standard used for artiles like Catalan people and Scottish people. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles are already there: French-speaking Quebecers and also French Canadian. The ambiguity over the word "Québécois" in English leads to confusion. Some people, a minority, not including me, thought important to make an encyclopedia article on the different meanings and not just a simple wiktionary page. Others have added political material which appear of importance in the English-Canadian realm of thought. That is why the current Québécois article looks like it does. In the past, I advocated a simple disambiguation page as the best solution, based on the model of Scottish or Scots and many others. I hope common sense will ultimately prevail and this clear and simple practise be used for "Québécois". -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not only talking about Québécois people. It is talking about the Québécois culture. I don't think we should move this article. --Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't it be merged with Culture of Quebec? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is done to explain what means the word "Québécois". It's talking about the Québécois people, the Québécois culture.. so the Québécois meanings. And I think it's important to keep it here. --Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

the infobox is not limited to french speaking quebecers.

Infobox

{{Infobox Ethnic group}} has been added back to this article. For past consensus on removing it, see Talk:Québécois/Archive 2#Question 1. –Pomte 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing with other cultural groups as French Canadians, Irish Americans, or Bretons, without any separatism-nationalism implied, it appears totally adequate to present the Québec people with an Infobox. As you can notice, I made an effort to put people from any allegiance, and any field (including federalists, nationalists, separatists, neo-Quebecer, women, scientists, artists, anglophone, and Irish-Quebecer).

Moreover, Québec (with the accent) is the official name in both French and English. Just go on the Government website.

Do we agree here ? Any suggestion of other personnalities is welcome of course

The issue is not with the people. There are strong objections that this is not a cultural or ethnic group, or at least that is not what this article should primarily be about. The French-speaking Quebecer article was created to include a box among other things (it needs expansion). –Pomte 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But Quebecers are a nation/ethnic group etc. that is not restricted to francophones. French Canadians do not restrict to Québec, and Québec is not only about French-speaking Quebecers. Thus this article for representing Quebecers is very adequate as an ethnic group page, AND should also settled confusions about the name usage. I would work in the future to expand the former.

Whether Quebecers form a nation or not is a point of political disagreement. In any case, the National Assembly used the word "Quebecer" and the House of Commons -at the insistence of Harper - the word "Québécois". The Conservatives were criticized for the vagueness of the word Québécois because in English it seems to exclude many Quebecers, which was the purpose for which the Conservatives wanted that word used in English, though there is nothing in the French version suggesting that exclusion. Many people were shocked to see a word like Québécois used in a legal text. There is no reason that Wikipedia should adopt this language as its own.

There are two unambiguous notions, each with a meaning clearly delimited by their name:

1. Quebecer. An inhabitant of Quebec. There is no reason to treat this subject separately from "Quebec", any more than there is reason to treat "Ghanaian" separately from "Ghana".
2. French-speaking Quebecer or francophone Quebecer. For this, there is an article French-speaking Quebecer.

Québécois approximates an ethnic/cultural group only if you consider them synonymous with 2, which is not the case in French, despite what some editors have included in this article - and removed dispute tags from. There is very little to be said here that cannot be said more appropriately at one of the other locations, except what relates to the use of the word Québécois, which is what it was agreed this article should be about. Many editors expended considerable effort in reaching that consensus.

The consensus against an infobox was a very strong one, so I am removing it.

Other subjects should only be treated as they relate to the use of the word Québécois. Importantly, the fact that francophone Quebecers most frequently identify themselves as Québécois in French should not be treated extensively here, since that word simply means "Quebecer" in French. Quebec nationalism is a more appropriate home for that. Joeldl (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. The Quebecois identity is crucial in understanding the usage of the word, especially in English. There are plenty of authoratitive sources here that document usage in French and English. --soulscanner (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of 'Quebec' over 'Québec'

This article is written in English, so we should prioritize English terms. The English form of 'Québec' is 'Quebec'. The accents in 'Québécois' remain for its linguistic significance in this article. See WP:ENGVAR. –Pomte 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

see : http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/?lang=en which is a much more recognized and official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan Alaer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree on this one ?

The accent being official does not mean the use of 'Quebec' is inappropriate for English writing. You would have to change every instance of 'Québec' that appears in Wikipedia, probably beginning with the Quebec article, the first footnote of which mentions the distinction. –Pomte 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would if I had time now. We can at least make thus starting with this very article. It is not inappropriate, but an official name is an official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan Alaer (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quebec government practice is contrary in this regard to what is customary in English. The Montreal Gazette, for example, doesn't use an accent. I think the British North America Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982, don't use an accent. Joeldl (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rule is "name most seen in common English usage", not "official name". Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Quebec and I don't put an accent on Quebec when I'm writing in English. It's like "United States", it's the "official name" of the US, but in French, we translate it as "États-Unis". It's the same thing for "Québec" in English. -Jimmy James Lavoie (talk)

The point the editor is making is that Quebec has an official name for itself in English, used for example in the English versions of provincial statutes. (The United States also has the official name for itself États-Unis d'Amérique, since all members of the UN have official English and French names.) But Wikipedia has chosen Quebec anyway because: (a) that is the customary name in English; and (b) it is reflective of (most) federal practice in English. On an informal level, I think people get the sense that this Quebec government practice is essentially politically motivated. A long time ago, when Bill 101 had just been passed, there was even a government poster with a drawing of a hand putting an accent (back?) on the word QUEBEC, so there is some symbolism involved. Why the government really thinks that a 10% English minority has less of a right to an English name for the province they live in than they do to an English name for Sweden (not Sverige!) is beyond me. Joeldl (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize this was posted a little while ago, but I am reading it just now. The reason why the Quebec government writes "Québec" with an accent even in English is to be found in article 14 of the Charter of the French language which says: "The Government, the government departments, the other agencies of the civil administration and the services thereof shall be designated by their French names alone."[1]

The idea is not to disallow translations of "Québec" in other languages or alphabets, which happens naturally, but to promote French only everywhere it counts. You can read on the "iconography of the landscape" to get an idea of the importance it can play on the minds of people. In a closely related field, marketing, the practice of using English corporate names, or trade marks even outside English-speaking markets illustrates how powerful such a policy can become with enough money put behind it. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially when combined with the "ethnic vote". :-) --soulscanner (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Regarding the addition of Category:French America, Category:French North America, and so on, "normally articles should not appear both in a category and a "parent" of that category". Category:French America is in Category:French North America. Imagine if every article in every subcategory of Category:French North America were in it. What would be the point? Similarly, Category:French North America is in Category:French Canada. People looking for general articles about America, North America, and so on are not expected to be confronted with specific articles about Quebec. –Pomte 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This was more to make it more complete. It is not crucial and may be confusing you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan Alaer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW I removed the categories.

Although I still think a simple disambiguation page is the best solution (based on the model of Scottish or Scots or even American people etc., I certainly won't oppose a move to a sensible article on Quebecers/Québécois including all my compatriots. So long as we do not deny the status of distinct nations inside the nation which Québec officially recognizes to the Amerindians and the Inuit. Making only 1% of the population, they are too often left out. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good point about the natives. Let's make sure they have a part in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.243.241 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And regarding the individual Quebecers represented, although proportionality between francos, anglos, and allos is not practical, proportionality between men and women surely is possible. The current selection appears fine in the intent, but unfortunately, women are underrepresented (3/11). We could add one more person to have a total of 12. If this new one be a woman, then we would only need to replace two men by two women (4 + 2 = 6). Maybe Louise Arbour and La Bolduc to replace Alphonse Desjardins and Gilles Duceppe? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Section on ethnonym constitutes original research and POV commentary on sources already cited. There is nothing other than the editors opinion to indicate that one source is more reliable than another. The definitions are all summarized neutrally in the lead. All sources are equally authorastive, and unless someone can cite a scholarly source that summarizes these discrepencies in sources it remains the unsubstantiated POV of the author.

Again, just because an editor does not like legitimately documented usage is no reason to question the authority of the cited references. --soulscanner (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, I cited three dictionaries which do not have any trace of an ethnic meaning. It stands to reason that they are not going to go out of their way to say that the word doesn't have one. Requiring otherwise puts an unfair burden on me, since no dictionary is going to expressly contradict your single source (published in France and recognizing in its preface that it describes usage in France.) However, the entry from Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui is probably five or six times longer than the one in Le Petit Robert, and it's from the same publisher. It's hard to believe that the author wouldn't have noticed the Petit Robert definition. He just disagreed with it.

It seems entirely plausible to me that Le Petit Robert would have a meaning like that because French people have said to me "Mais, vous êtes anglophone, alors vous n'êtes pas Québécois!" Confusion over what seem to foreigners like subtle nuances sometimes finds its way into a dictionary as reflective of usage, just as in Russian dictionaries the confusion between "English" and "British" is basically officially sanctioned now.

I am treating this as a disagreement of sources, because in the case of DQA, at least, any ethnic meaning would have been mentioned.

As for the translations, I think we should wait for more opinions on whether I've added enough for them to constitute original research. Joeldl (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you argue that the Petit Robert is not valid in Quebec; I dispute that. And those definitions are included here, and have always been included here. You are explicitly saying that documented usage here is "unreliable" strictly on the basis that you personally disagree with it. All you offer is pure speculation and personal anecdotes as to why the dictionary and a journalism professor and editor is wrong, and why other dictionaries may be excluding it; again, just because you do not like a defintion is no reason to exclude it and to call the sources unreliable. You will note that there are other sources that clearly document usage of Quebecois in paralell with Acadien and "franco-Ontarien". Your edits here border on vandalism. --soulscanner (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that adding a dispute tag "borders on vandalism." This is a good-faith dispute. Here's a quote from the Petit Robert concerning the variety of French on which it's based:

• "Ces données ne prétendent pas remplacer les descriptions spécifiques et plus exhaustives des belgicismes [...], et encore moins se substituer à des dictionnaires du français décrivant l'usage et la norme de cette langue dans une communauté sociale donnée (le Robert vient d'en faire la tentative très sérieuse au Québec, par le Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui.)» [...] Le Nouveau Petit Robert, bien qu'il décrive fondamentalement une norme du français de France, inclut certains régionalismes de France et d'ailleurs pour souligner qu'il existe plusieurs « bons usages », définis non par un décret venu de Paris, mais par autant de réglages spontanés ou de décisions collectives qu'il existe de communautés vivant leur identité en français." (emphasis mine).

This says explicitly that it is based on French (as in "France") usage.

So why does Lysianne Gagnon explicitly document this usage in Quebec? More over, so does Churchill [2]“French speakers usually refer to their own identities with adjectives such as québécoise, acadienne, or franco-canadienne, or by some term referring to a provincial linguistic minority such as francomanitobaine, franco-ontarienne or fransaskoise.” Again, just because you do not like this usage is no reason to deny that it exists.

Moreover, flagging a legitimate reference from a legitimate source is not valid. You have indicated nothing to show that these sources are invalid. --soulscanner (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I consider the Lysiane Gagnon references to be unreliable. I'm not going to discuss what she says because there's no reason to believe that she's "documenting" anything any more than she's "documenting" that Quebec isn't a nation, a claim disputed by many people of equal stature.

The Petit Robert is generally reliable but here is contradicted by other sources, and also has limitations due to its editorial policy of reflecting usage in France. Joeldl (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything contradictory in what Churchill says and what I'm saying. Say you say, "Anglophone Quebecers refer to their own identity as 'Canadian,'" you don't mean that they consider nobody else to be Canadian; they are choosing to identify with a Canadian whole. Similarly, in saying that francophone Quebecers "refer to their own identity as Quebecers," that does not mean that they consider non-francophones to be non-Quebecers. There is nothing there to indicate that they are not identifying with a Quebec whole. Joeldl (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, she documents the usage of the word Quebecois Read the quote: "“C'est que dans la langue populaire, le mot "Québécois" en est venu à désigner les Canadiens français, ce vieux peuple qui a perdu son nom quelque part durant les années 70.”". It is documenting the same usage as in the Petit Robert documenting the usage in Quebec. Do you have a reference that contradicts this documentation? On what basis do you deny the existence of this usage? Please stay on topic: the article explains the ambiguous usage in a way that dictionaries cannot. It explains the social, political, and identity issues around the usage of the word, and ighly relevant to the article.

On what basis is this quote unreliable? Is the author, an editor and journalism professor, not qualified to comment on language usage? Who is? What referenced commentary from a qualified academic source contradicts Gagnon other than your personal opinion and theory as to why this defintion is excluded from some dictionaries? --soulscanner (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered these questions. Joeldl (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Two quotes on the fundamentally territorial nature of Québécois

The Dictionnaire du français Plus has what it calls a développement encyclopédique on the word québécois, which I quote here practically in its entirety (but omitting the part about Quebec City, a meaning we might add to this article.)

• "Mis à part quelques emplois sporadiques antérieurs, le gentilé Québécois au sens d'«habitants du Québec» ne s'implanta véritablement dans l'usage qu'à compter des années 1960; avant cette époque, les Québécois se désignaient eux-mêmes par le nom de Canadiens français, à valeur ethnologique plutôt que territoriale (v. Canadien). Ce phénomène s'explique pour une bonne part par l'émergence d'un fort sentiment d'identité par rapport aux autres habitants du Canada et par la montée du nationalisme. Cette situation a, par ailleurs, suscité diverses autres dénominations comme Boréalien, Franconien, Laurentien, fondées sur la notion d'un authentique et pur Québec renommé Boréalie, Franconie ou Laurentie. Ces dénominations n'ont guère dépassé le cercle restreint de quelques groupements nationalistes et ont connu un succès plutôt éphémère."(Emphasis mine.)

In the italicized part they are contrasting the ethnological Canadien français and the territorial Québécois. Here's a quote from Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism by Thomas W. Benson:

• "French-Canadians in Quebec had to live the contradiction of not being exclusively subjects of the state they collectively controlled. "Québécois" resolves this difficulty at the discursive level, by identifying the populace with a territory and a francophone state, rather than with an ethnic group.

Both of these quotes emphasize the essential feature of the word Québécois - a non-ethnic, territorial one. DFP, as mentioned previously, gives only a territorial definition of Québécois. Are you seriously contending that it was an oversight to exclude an ethnic meaning? Joeldl (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is notorious that one of the reasons why the ethnonym Canadien français was abandoned was because "French Canada" did not exist as a clearly defined territory, although obviously many people thought that Québec had to be the "mainland" of it. For the generation that made the change, being Québécois meant that they identified with the territory of Québec and considered Quebecers living beyond those borders as being expatriated and bound to melt away in the not so distant future. Bernard Landry, of the Quiet Revolution generation, tried to summarize it in a conference for young folks at UQAM where he said (going from memory here, but the conference is on video):

1. My grand-father was a Canayen. All the other British Americans were les Anglais. But this became problematic eventually since as 1867 "Canada" designated a union of all British American colonies, so the old Canadiens, the inhabitants of a non-existing country found themselves in a strange position. (My opinion: technically, they could have renamed themselves to "Quebecers" as of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, but how often do you see a people renaming themselves just to match the arbitrary renaming of their homeland by a conquering power? "Vous êtes nés Français, vous n'avez pu cesser de l'être: une guerre qui ne nous avait été annoncée que par l'enlèvement de presque tous nos matelots, et dont nos ennemis communs n'ont dû les principaux succès qu'au courage, au talent, et au nombre des braves Américains qui les combattent aujourd'hui, vous a arraché, ce qui est le plus cher à tous les hommes, jusqu'au nom de votre patrie;" - Charles Hector, comte d'Estaing, October 1778

2. Since the Canadiens had no intention of becoming members of a new British North American nation forced upon them while they were already members of an existing nation founded in 1608, the word Canadien français came to be used to distinguish the two Canadian nations. This transition did not happen overnight, but eventually, francophones started to mean "citizens of BNA" when they said Canadiens. (My opinion: Hence all this talk about bilingualism, binationalism, biculturalism etc from day 1 of the Dominion up until the rupture with the rise of contemporary Quebec nationalism.)

3. Then, Michel Librovich, a Polish Jew arrived at UQAM in 1960s, became good friends with Bernard Landry and found it quite silly when he discovered he was supposed to be a Canadien-français-juif-polonais . "We ran out of hyphens." said Landry jokingly.

So being Québécois solved an old problem made obvious by the composition of Québec's population, rapidly changing because of the diversification in immigration. It made more sense to refer to everyone as Québécois and when needing to refer to specific subgroups to speak of Italo-Québécois, Judéo-Québécois etc. There was nothing revolutionary there, except maybe doing it while Ottawa continued to say "there is nothing specific about the old French province of Quebec. We are all Canadians subjects of the Queen of Canada in a single united nation with two languages and everlasting constitutional problems."

I do not know how many times was expressed, in various forms, the general idea that "French Canadians" of Quebec no longer wanting to be a minority in a State they could never control (Canada) became "Quebecers" to be a majority in a State they could democratically govern. I do not understand how, after even a superficial review of the main historical facts, one could fail to see that a people has renamed themselves from a name designating a territory no longer existing but in the dream to a name designating a territory that existed in the real world and even had a Parliament just for it. In the history of Quebec nationalism, the transition is marked by the abandoning of the survivalist discourse (characteristic of ethnic minorities) to territorial nationalism (characteristic of national majorities). One has to be home somewhere before one can say: "Bienvenue chez nous!" -- Mathieugp (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also this for those who will not pay attention to what Bernard Landry says because he was leader of the PQ:

"Il y a au Canada un seul problème : l’autonomie des Québécois. La réalité de l’autonomie empoigne toute la vie politique. L’état d’esprit des Canadiens français est celui d’une minorité qui veut cesser de l’être. La colère est si grande qu’ils ont maintenant la volonté d’être autre chose que des hommes en colère." - André Malraux (1963)

Joel: Feel free to summarize these POV's in the article. Take care to clearly indicate that they represent the personal POV's of the authors. These points are already explained in the section on Quebecois identity. Keep in mind, though, that this article is about how the word in used in English and also in French. None contradict the documentation here that the word is also used in an ethnic context. It only indicates that the authors in question use other definitions as well.

Can you explain to me that an aside in an obscure literary work is more relevant to the subject on a commentary by a well known journalist and editor who documents how the word is used in mainstream culture, politics, and everyday life on an important item in the news? Why do you consider this source reliable, and the source that contradicts you questionable?

--soulscanner (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner,it does strike me that this interpretation is the opinion of a single political columnist and editor, and shouldn't be considered as being authoritative, linguistically speaking. However, I'll concede that Lysianne Gagnon is a person of some notability in political matters, and this is also in part a political definition. I would then suggest that this definition be left in the article, but properly attributed to a single, (politically) notable person, as WP dictates. Currently, it comes across quite a bit more strongly.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about political matters. I'm talking about language usage. Does she have authority to document and comment on language usage in the press and aong the general population? --soulscanner (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

She's a a political columnist and a journalist AFAIK, not a linguist. So, to answer your qestion, not she doesn't have the necessary qualifications to authoritatively document and discuss language usage in the population (although, I might concede her opinion may be considered notable for other reasons — just not authoritative). Leave that to linguists.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

She is most notable as an editor. An editor does not have the authority to document and comment on how language is used? That's interesting, considering it is what they are paid to do everyday. --soulscanner (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, she is most notable as an editor. Still, as an editor, her job is to review how stories are told (to oversimplify things), not to gauge the evolution of a language. She isn't academically trained to do that. This should be left to linguists, and she isn't one.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One of her main job as an editor (any editor) is to proof read, and to assure the quality of French in her newspaper. She is trained and hired as an editor based on her knowledge of acceptable French. She is academically and practically trained to know how French is used in Quebec, as is any editor. An editor has as much practical knowledge of how language is used as a linguist, probably even more. Moreover, documentation of how language is used in reputable journals is as authoratitive as what one might find among linguists. Linguists do not focus on usage; they focus on syntax in the context of linguistic theory. Dictionary publishers are more likely to be experienced editors than linguists. --soulscanner (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, she is not trained in linguistics (or the specific relevant discipline of linguistics in this case, etymology). While her knowledge of French is certainly above average, she still isn't academically authoritative on matters of language (she would be like a chemist giving an opinion on a matter of biology: trained in the sciences, admittedly, but not in the proper field). Also, her opinion in an editorial column remains that: an editorial opinion. It's not meant to be taken as a treatise on the correct use of language or on etymology, and you would be misguided to think so. Linguists focus on all the different aspects of linguistics, whether theoretical (etymology is one such field) or applied, not just syntactics as you seem to imply. And yes, dictionary publishers usually are editors, but backed by a number of linguists on their staff. The same cannot be said of newspaper editors, as newspapers aren't expected to be authorities on language (although they are expected to use it properly), and neither should they be construed as such.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, linguists work for editors. If you accept dictionary definitions, you are accepting the authority of an editor over that of the linguists they employ. Editors have the final authority. You do not need to be trained in lingustics to be an authority on language usage, and training in linguistics does not make you an authority on language usage. Editors are expected to do more than use language properly. They are expected to make sound judgements on its current usage, and hence to be even more informed than linguists in terms of the various modern contexts in which certain words are used. That is why editors, and not linguists, are the final authorities on how language is used and on what gets into dictionaries, newspapers, and electronic media. Linguists, on the other hand, have very specialized knowledge in their field of expertise; here, we are talking about how language is used in the media and in popular usage; editors are much closer to understanding the political, social, and identity issues involved in terms like this. Moreover, the subject of the editorial makes reference to facts that are not opinion, but that represent the documentation of how "Quebecois" is used. That is why it is generally newspapers publishers, and not linguists, that compile dictionaries. Linguists are theoreticians, editors are involved in application. The correct analogy would be that of a theoretical and applied physicist. You would not want a linguist having authority on how language is used in the media and daily usage anymore than you would want a theoretical physicist giving advice on how to apply nuclear physics at a power station. --soulscanner (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept the authority of dictionary editors about language, because their opinions are supported by linguists. I'm not aware that Lysiane Gagnon's work as a neswpaper editor is supported by even a single linguist on the newspaper's staff. What you are doing is mixing up the work of a newspaper editor with that of a dictionary editor, which is akin to mixing up a "train engineer" with an "engineer". It is disingenuous at best, and tells of downright ignorance at worst. Linguists, not editors, are the final authority on language, contrary to what you might think (ask a linguist, and see their reaction). It is becoming clearer and clearer that you are willing to grasp at any argument to try to make your point.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind everybody that the first quote above is taken from a dictionary of the French language published in Canada. It is recognized as being one of the best two general dictionaries of the French language produced in Canada. The dictionary was headed by three linguists from Laval University, assisted by a team of several dozen writers. On Lysiane Gagnon, any article with that title raises questions on its acceptability as a source on linguistic issues. Joeldl (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that your such an expert on dictionaries. Clearly, there are other academic studies and the Canadian census that identify Quebecois as an ethnonym (i.e. an ethnic group). If the dictionaries miss this obvious defintions, then they are obviously overlooking common and academic usage and deeply flawed. --soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic? If one year enough people wrote they were "Klingon", then that would be put on the next census questionnaire as a choice. Then these "academic studies" are forced to rely on the Census data. When they do, they're always a bit upset because they can't find out what people's real ethnicities were. You erased a fact tag asking for confirmation that Québécois is used in academics as an ethnic designation when not forced to by the census data. Please provide that information. Joeldl (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnonym was your word. You are correct that it is not included I've changed the wording to ethnic group, wording that is used in the two related studies on Canadian ethnic groups. The Quebecois are clearly identified as etnic groups in the two studies quoted. As these are legitimate academic sources that address the academic usage of Quebecois in demographic studies, it is acceptable in Wikipedia. Your personal criticism of these constitutes original research, and while you are free to express this here, cannot be included in the article. If you find critiques of these studies in other academic or recognized mainstream media, please provide them. It will improve the article and elucidate the many meanings of Quebecois. --soulscanner (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition from the DFP

Explicitly, the DFP gives the following definition (for an adjective - it's the same basically for the noun):

• 1. adj. De la ville ou de la province de Québec. La chanson québécoise. Le Grand Nord québécois.

I don't see any difference between this example and Le Petit Robert's cinéma québécois. Except that here, it's not interpreted in an ethnic light. I think that casts doubt on the idea that cinéma québécois is intrinsically ethnic. Joeldl (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This definition is already in the article. Feel free to add the reference. I am not saying that the other definitions do not exist or predominate. Both definitions exist, and the word is often ambiguous in this context. All definitions are included discussed in the text based on references to legitimate sources. You cannot exclude a documented definition and discuss it based on personal anecdotes or becasue you do not like the definition.

This isn't a dictionary page anyways. This page is here to explain the complex political, social, cultural and identity issues that surround the usage of the word. --soulscanner (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Soulscanner. The absence of the meaning you're pushing from numerous other dictionaries, some of which have much longer entries on the word than Le Petit Robert, is an indication that those dictionaries did not feel it appropriate to include an ethnic sense, not that they "forgot". Also, Le Petit Robert admits in its preface that its aim is primarily to reflect usage in France. It's used in Canada because for aspects of the language on which Canada and France agree, it's a great dictionary.Joeldl (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The why do 38% of Quebecers identify their ethnicity as Quebecois according to the 2001 census? Lysiane Gagnon explicitly documents this in her article. The Petit Robert corroborates this. It is part of common usage in the Quebec vernacular. It's possible that many editors omit this definition in order to be politically correct; language is a highly politicized issue in Quebec, especially in academia and government. --soulscanner (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's in part because it's suggested as a possible choice by the census, legtimizing it. Why do so many Canadians give their ethnicity as "Canadian"? Joeldl (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Are you suggesting dictionary editors are not giving "Canadian" as an ethnic denomination because they're trying to hide something? Joeldl (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, becasue like you, some find it offensive, politically incorrect, or simply do not like this definition . Editors have their own prejudices, and many feel that their job is to prescribe as opposed to describe usage; the prescriptive use of language has a much stronger tradition in francophone academia. They have their own philisophical baises.

In any case, demographers, statistics Canada, and over 1 million Quebecois use it as an ethnonym. That clearly establishes it's usage as such in both English and French. Why some dictionaries ignore a documented academic use is merely speculative on both our parts. --soulscanner (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Statistics Canada" also allows "Canadian". That's because people have used it and "Québécois" in the past, so it gets put on later census questionnaires as a possible choice. Demographers are then stuck with whatever ends up in the census data. The "POV" dictionaries you're talking about (including both major Canadian ones) likely feel that "Québécois" means "francophone" in the same sort of circumstances in which "American literature" is thought of as referring to literature in English.

I don't see an ethnic definition of "American" in any dictionaries. Yet you might hear some people in the U.S. claim Barack Obama isn't American enough for them. Does that mean we should amend the definition of "American" to be an ethnic term? Joeldl (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are interesting, but we're not here to discuss these. Are you doubting and the quoted academic definitions as legitimate sources? They clearly identify Quebecois as an ethnonym. --soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What you seem to be talking about are Le Petit Robert, which I've addressed, and papers on ethnicity forced to deal with census data that include "Canadian" and "Québécois" as ethnic identifications. Your contention is contradicted by other academic sources which I've named: three dictionaries, a "développement encyclopédique" in one of those dictionaries, and the quote from Benson. Dictionaries and linguists are the most authoritative sources on word meanings, and the value of Benson's quote is at least as probative as that of your Lysiane Gagnon, who was clearly writing polemically. (The title of her piece was "Nation? Quelle nation?".)

The dictionaries you have named do not include this definition. You interpret this as meaning that the usage of Quebecois to refer to an ethnic group is illegitimate. This interpretation is your personal speculation, and not based on referenced commentary. I could offer an opinion that this only means that the dictionaries are incomplete (not all dictionaries include all definitions), possibly out of a conscious attempt to deligitimize the usage, and back it up with referenced sources that use Quebecois to describe an ethnic group (the quoted census studies, the Petit Robert definition, and the Lysiane Gagnon articles). This too, of course, would be original research, which is why I avoid criticizing or commenting on the dictionary definitions, and let the definitions speak for themselves. As I said, if you find a referenced commentary from an academic source that comments on this omission in dictionaries, please include it in the article. If all you have to offer is personal anecdotes from France and political conspiracy theories, kindly bring them to a political forum. --soulscanner (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not suggested putting in the article anything like "Such or such dictionaries say there is no such meaning" (although one dictionary does in a développement encyclopédique explicitly contrast the "ethnological" Canadien français and the "territorial" Québécois). However, we mention that that sense is absent from the two Canadian dictionaries. You claim that this is because they are simply incomplete - I have offered arguments as to why this is not credible. At no point have I suggested putting anything about this in the article. But it is you who has insisted that the article treat the ethnic sense as a fact (for example in unqualified sentences like Québécois may also mean...) without any qualifying language. And this approach assumes that your contention is correct that the other dictionaries are simply incomplete. So you are not simply saying that the article should not pass judgment on the issue of whether these dictionaries are incomplete; you are saying that it should pass judgment implicitly by accepting that Le Petit Robert is correct, and the others are incomplete. I reject your allegation that I want to have original research in the article. Joeldl (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on House of Commons resolution

I added a tag a long time ago saying that this section, which at the time contained only Harper's view on the meaning of "Québécois", did not reflect all significant viewpoints. Since then, much has been added about opposition to the resolution, which is beside the point of this article, since this article, it was agreed, is about the use of the word Québécois.

Nothing has been added, as far as I can tell, about viewpoints opposing Harper's interpretation of the resolution concerning the meaning of Québécois, or criticism of the choice of the word "Québécois" over "Quebecer". These subjects are completely relevant to the topic of the article.

As it reads at present, it seems almost as if because he proposed the motion, he gets to decide what it means. This is not the case: the entire House voted on the wording before them, which was a compromise with a previous motion by the Bloc; it did not vote on statements Harper made about his motion.

I don't have time to fix this, but I want to make my objections clear lest anybody should later claim that the reason for the "significant viewpoints" tag hasn't been clarified. Joeldl (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please specify what these "significant" viewpoints are, as there are literally hundreds. The Quebecois nation motion represents an important use for the word that has dominated the news for a certain time. In fact, some consider this resolution so important that they insisted on putting it in the lead of the Quebec article, something I objected to. This issue clearly illustrates a significant event in which the multiple meanings of the word came into play; the meaning of "Quebcois nation" clearly pertains to a notable and significant usage of the word. Please tell me which viewpoints you wish added, and I'll add them. If you are acting in good faith, then you will wish that this section is fixed up, and tell editors specifically whose viewpoints you wish expressed if you are unwilling to add them yourself. Would you like the opinion of Gilles Duceppe? Daniel Turp? Jean Charest? Pauline Marois? Jean Charest? Charles Taylor? Stephane Dion? Or do you simply want me to guess at what you consider a significant opinion? --soulscanner (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just putting the tag there serves the important function of warning readers that it is felt by some there is a lack of balance. It's an improvement over the previous state of affairs. Having gone that far doesn't mean that if I fail to improve it further, that entitles you to remove the tag. The tag needs to be there to warn readers.Joeldl (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The most significant opposing view is that of the Bloc that it includes all Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilles Duceppe, or Daniel Turp, or will anybody do? Is that enough? Yu are also wrong about the purpose of the tags. They are there so that editors f good faith work towards improving the article, not to push the POV of editors. These tags should indicate a willingness to contibute to improving the article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They serve both purposes. Warning the reader that there is disagreement is an important function of dispute tags. "Good faith" does not mean willingness to engage in editing a section when it seems like an uphill struggle to squeeze a comma in.Joeldl (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)== Quebecois as ethnonym ==

Section should start by saying whether or not Quebecois is used as ethnonym and the relevant statistics. This si the topic of the section, not how other terms are used as ethnonyms. Appropriate edits can be made later on. --soulscanner (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's important because you're using this as an argument that Québécois is an ethnic designation. If your reasoning is correct, it would also show that "Canadian" is. People may also think that people are just volunteering "Québécois". In actual fact, it's suggested as a choice. (And you can't use that as evidence of anything because "Canadian" is a choice as well.) Joeldl (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's shown in the last sentence of the first paragraph. No need to repeat it. You should discuss it here first. --soulscanner (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article clearly shows that Canadian is ethnonym as well. It's not a question of my reasoning or argument; it's a question of presenting the definitions, methodologies and data classifications provided in the source. I added statistics for other regional ethnic identities (Acadian, Canadian, Newfoundlander), which was added here by Mathieu. This further balances article. Article needs to state clearly at start that Quebecois is used as ethnonym, as this is the topic of section. Other identities are clearly identified as such as well. This is neccessary context, but not the main topic of the article. Lets keep the topic focussed on how Quebecois is used as an ethnonym, with any neccessary context added in the appropriate section. --soulscanner (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, "Canadian" is not an ethnonym, and nor is "Québécois". The people who answer this way are likely doing it in part because the possibility is suggested to them by the questionnaire, and partly because they don't see what else to answer. As the reports note, allowing "Canadian" and "Québécois" is sometimes criticized on this basis. In any case, giving your identity as "Canadian" doesn't mean you think Japanese Canadians aren't Canadian, and identifying yourself as Québécois doesn't mean you think an Italo-Québécois isn't Québécois. These are default ethnic identities one uses when forced to choose, not true ethnonyms. "Newfoundlander" is not an ethnonym either.

You say that the facts about "Canadian" are not very relevant. It's important to mention them prominently because it puts the argument you're making (and yes, you are making one) about self-identification as Québécois in proper context, easily understood for people not familiar with census ethnic data in general. They cannot be expected to have to refer to an article on "Canadians" to be provided with the appropriate context.Joeldl (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all your own personal POV. The demographersthat create the Census and perrfom the studies are more authoratative than your personal theories POV on the matter. Feel free to include scholarly sources that criticize it as opposed to adding your own editorial comments that contradict the study and simply writing long, usubstantiated essays to justify your POV edits. The studies cited clearly identifies that Quebecois is used as an ethnic group, as do over 1 million Quebecers. The reasons for this can be as varied as the individuals, and my speculation is as good as yours on this. Lets stick to facts. --soulscanner (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

About the political use of the census

1. First, the census question is:

What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person’s ancestors?

An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent. For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, East Indian, Irish, Cree, Mi’kmaq (Micmac), Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), Ukrainian, Dutch, Filipino, Polish, Portuguese, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Salvadorean, Somali, etc.

Inferring that a person who picks "Greek" as ethnic or cultural origin of one of his ancestors thinks he/she belongs to that ethnic or cultural group is not logical. It makes no sense is reality (since there is no guaranty that ethnicity made it all the way to him or her) and it is to presume what people think when they answer the census question. So the whole premise of the paragraph which Soulscanner no longer objects to because he discovered he may now make use of it is entirely flawed. It is not accurate to write: "report their ethnic identity as "Québécois"". They report that of their ancestors. They may even be thinking of their cultural origins if they read the census question correctly.

On a side note, it is interesting to observe that statistics Canada did not list Québécois as an example, but listed Canadian (controversially, since 2001). Does that mean that Canadian is an ethnic origin but not Québécois? If we were in bad faith like Soulscanner, we would push this door wide open, and conclude to the ethnic nature of the word "Canadian", and therefore, infallibly that of Canadian nationalism. We would have great proof, something even better than the unfounded assertions of a mercenary columnist like Lysiane Gagnon. We would have the proof of it in the vocabulary of the brilliant scientists of Statistics Canada, surely the best scientists in the whole world.

2. I had already warned of the lack of seriousness of an entire article on the uses of the word Québécois in English. How wrong such an article can turn has now been exemplified beyond what I had imagined possible. We were many to see it as nothing but a pretext to push a political agenda in which denying the territorial nature of contemporary Québécois identity (which does not mean it is deprived of specific cultural elements otherwise it would not be human but machine identity) is so important.

3. Even the poorest subject can be lengthily written about. An entire and similarly uninformative article, lacking in scientific rigour, could be written about virtually every other ethnic/cultural/national identity. Why only for my national identity is such a piece of crap to be found inside Wikipedia? I demand justice! I want to see one for all the other peoples on Earth! ;-)

Seriously though, I objected to it initially, preferring a simple redirect to Quebec, but now in light of the "evolution" of the current content, I believe it would be more relevant to have an article on the Quebecer/Québécois people as Lorcan Alaer had started doing. It is rather strange indeed that we have articles on English-speaking Quebecers, French-speaking Quebecers, Irish Quebecers, Scots-Quebecers but nothing on all of us. Such an article would most likely be vandalized by bigots once in a while, but at least it would contain the kind of info people seem to expect when they type a people's name in Wikipedia. I have already started a more serious French-language article on the ethnic origins of Quebecers in my draft section. It is far from being complete, but with the help of a few others, we might be able to bring it up to shape, translate it, and debunk a boatload of myths with solid evidence. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Soulscanner says elsewhere on this page that the census is incontrovertible evidence of a Canadian ethnicity, following a number of Reform Party thinkers in that regard. (The Reform Party organized a campaign to get people to say they were "Canadian" on the census.) However, he does not want any parallels to be made on this page between the response "Canadian" to the EDS, and "Québécois", because he says this page is supposed to be about "Québécois". This despite the fact that the survey report refers to "Canadian, provincial and regional ethnic identities" and discusses all of the responses "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" and "Newfoundlander" in the same place. (p. 14 of the report [3])

I agree entirely with your assessment of Soulscanner's use of the EDS. He refers to Jantzen (2005) as "ethnographic studies" (note the plural - it's the only one mentioned), and treats the fact that Jantzen (of the Heritage Department) is forced to deal with the response "Québécois" on the survey as an indication that the use of "Québécois" as an ethnic designator is officially and academically sanctioned.

I agree entirely that with your views on the nature of this article. I feel this is a single-purpose article "owned" by a single editor and directed at making a linguistic case (though it goes beyond linguistic usage now) that Quebec nationalism is ethnic and exclusionary in character.

I believe this page should be renamed Use of the word Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph of "Ethnic identity" section

Soulscanner and I clearly have a disagreement about how this should be written. Here are our respective versions. He reverted attempts to rewrite it more or less as in my proposed version. Joeldl (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner's version

Ethnic identity

Québécois is used as an ethnonym in both the English and French versions of the Canadian census and in demographic studies of ethnicity in Canada. According to the Ethnic Diversity Survey of the 2001 census, over 1 million Canadians identify their ethnicity as Québécois, making this the 8th largest ethnic group in Canada . The survey report notes that 80% of Canadians whose families had been in Canada for three or more generations reported "Canadian and provincial or regional ethnic identities", including "Canadian" (55% of Canada), "Acadian" (6% of Atlantic provinces) and "Newfoundlander" (38% of Newfoundland and Labrador).

Joeldl's proposed version

Ethnic Diversity Survey

Quebecers, like other Canadians, often use "New World" ethnic identities in responding to census surveys. According to the Ethnic Diversity Survey of the 2001 census, 37% of Quebecers, and in all over 1 million Canadians, report their ethnic identity as "Québécois", making this the 8th largest ethnic group in Canada . Likewise, 55% of Canadians identified their ethnic identity as "Canadian". The survey report notes that 80% of Canadians whose families had been in Canada for three or more generations reported "Canadian and provincial or regional ethnic identities", including "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" and "Newfoundlander". (.

Comments

As Mathieugp points out above, it is factually inaccurate that Québécois appears as an example ethnic origin in the Canadian census. Only Canadian does.

I am also not certain if the 6% and 38% numbers apply to 3rd+ generation Canadians. I know the 55% figure doesn't.

Soulscanner attempts to avoid any treatment of "Canadian" and "Québécois" as analogous responses, even though the report discusses them in the same section and groups them under the name "Canadian and provincial or regional ethnic identities". Note that he removes "Québécois" from the list of four names (which appear together in the report), so it will not be seen side-by-side with "Canadian". Joeldl (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a specious accusation. Canadian is mentioned in the article as a choice for ethnicity. The fact that many Quebecers wrote in Quebecois as their ethnicity is also mentioned. This is mentioned first because it addresses the topic of the article, which is how the word Quebecois is used in census and demographic studies, a perfectly legitimate use. It is also a fact that the more detailed and focussed EDS study included Quebecois, Acadian and Newfoundlander with over 1 000 000 Quebecers identifying Quebecois as their ethnicity. That is the fact. You speculate as to the reasons for this, but your personal theories are not as legitimate as the two census studies. The context is fully explained in the article and backed up with explicit referenced quotes. I encourage you to follow the example with referenced quotes from other studies instead of introducing caveats to push your personal POV. Personal ctitiques of the methodology of the quoted studies certainly are not valid in the article. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that the survey report treats the four ("Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian", "Newfoundlander") together, and you are editing in ways to avoid having "Canadian" and "Québécois" compared in the article. You say "used" in ethnographic studies. I would say they are simply reflecting whatever responses were given, not adopting the terminology as their own. Otherwise, they would have to adopt "Canadian" as an ethnic term. Again, you have restored information I had corrected: the 55% figure does not pertain to 3rd+ generation Canadians. Joeldl (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that a census is by no means an ethnographic study.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rest of section

I believe the remaining paragraphs are off-topic, as the consensus is this article deals with the use of the word Québécois, not general considerations on the sense of ethnic belonging of French Canadians unrelated to the word Québécois.

I think you need to review the deciding rationales for keeping the article:

• The first explains that Quebecois is a loaded term with cultural and historical contexts that other terms do not have. The need to explain these contexts is specifically identified as a key element in the decision to keep this article. [[4]]
• Another clearly identifies that controversies surrounding this term are intrinsically noteworthy, and should be documented in an encyclopedia. [5] The use of Quebecois as an ethnonym is precisely such a contoversy. if it is controversial, it is precisely because some people, academics, demographers, and ordinary people, use the term and others do not. I encourage you to add other sources that elucidate the various arguements for and against the use of Quebecois as an ethnonym, and to clearly indicate their political, ideological and cultural POV. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• This post clearly states that the term has its own history, making the historical evolution of the term in politics, culture, and identity a legitimate topic. [6].

Essentially, you are attempting to stifle new additions by limiting the scope of the article to a summary of dictionary entries, an argument that was explicitly rejected in the discussion above that decided to keep this article. You are perfectly within your rights to question the balance here, but you must show good faith by accepting the consensus by adding your own referenced content to balance what you find to have a slanted POV. Please accept the consensus and help by adding and summarizing other studies that if you feel other historical, cultural, and political perspectives are missing. The referenced sources you have provided are useful and legitimate, and many of the edits you have made have been useful as well. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The things you have added discuss the sense of ethnic belonging of all people with "French New World" ethnic identities. This may be belonging to the group "French Canadian", "Canadian", "French" or "Québécois". These are characteristics of the people and the relation to the word Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the article as a needed context, but it is not the main topic of the section (the use of Quebcois in studies of ethnicity is the topic). I don't see your point. Are you saying that discussion of the usage of Quebecois as an ethnonym or ethnic group does not belong in the article? If so, why did you introduce it (see link [7])? --soulscanner (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary section

Soulscanner's version

The dictionary Le Petit Robert, published in France, defines Québécois as an ethnonym and adjective in addition to its territorial meaning, referring to francophone or French Canadian culture in Quebec. The dictionary gives as examples cinéma québécois and littérature québécoise.

The ethnic or linguistic sense is absent from Le Petit Larousse, also published in France, as well as from French dictionaries published in Canada such as Le Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui and Le Dictionnaire du français Plus, which indicate instead Québécois francophone "francophone Quebecer" in the linguistic sense. These dictionaries also include phrases like cinéma québécois "Quebec cinema", but do not classify them as relating to language or ethnicity.

Joeldl's version of first two paragraphs

The dictionary Le Petit Robert, published in France, states that the adjective québécois, in addition to its territorial meaning, may refer specifically to francophone or French Canadian culture in Quebec. The dictionary gives as examples cinéma québécois and littérature québécoise.

However, an ethnic or linguistic sense is absent from Le Petit Larousse, also published in France, as well as from French dictionaries published in Canada such as Le Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui and Le Dictionnaire du français Plus, which indicate instead Québécois francophone "francophone Quebecer" in the linguistic sense. These dictionaries also include phrases like cinéma québécois "Quebec cinema", but do not classify them as relating to language or ethnicity.

Joeldl's comments

Soulscanner wishes to make it seem that the acceptability of an ethnic meaning of Québécois in French can be taken for granted. Obviously, sources disagree on this, as the many discussions above attest. In fact, Le Petit Robert seems to take a minority view. and as I mention above, it is published in France and attempts to reflect usage in France.

Soulscanner has made the argument that the omission of any ethnic meaning from other dictionaries is not in contradiction with le Petit Robert. This is not credible, because dictionaries published in Canada would not overlook such an important issue.

• Le Petit Larousse (France) does not give an ethnic meaning.
• The Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui is from the same publishers as Le Petit Robert, so the authors would have been well aware of the Petit Robert definition. It is not credible that the omission of an ethnic meaning from it was an oversight. In fact, the entry on québécois in it is quite lengthy (compared to a dozen lines in Le Petit Robert).
• The Dictionnaire du français Plus, written by a team of linguists from Laval University, includes a développement encyclopédique (quoted above at Talk:Québécois#Two quotes on the fundamentally territorial nature of Québécois) after its entry for québécois, in which it explicitly compares the ethnic Canadien français and the territorial Québécois. It is not credible that the omission of an ethnic meaning from its entry for québécois was an oversight.

These dictionaries do not feel it appropriate (Soulscanner would say on political grounds, but we must assume on linguistic grounds) to include an ethnic meaning. The only examples given by Le Petit Robert, "littérature québécoise", etc., are covered under the (non-ethnic) senses in DFP and DQA. They can easily be interpreted in a non-ethnic light, as being analogous to "American literature". (And yet no dictionaries claim American is an ethnic designation.)

Soulscanner's comments

See below--soulscanner (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: How should the claimed ethnic meaning in French be treated?

Here are some choices:

1. As an incontovertible fact, and on par in importance with the territorial meaning.
2. As an incontrovertible fact, but with its use in that meaning considered incorrect or marginal by most sources.
3. As a fact in dispute.
4. As a fact in dispute, and held as a minority view.
5. As false. Joeldl (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses

As a fact in dispute, held as a minority view. Joeldl (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As a fact in dispute (held by an unknown proportion of people in English, but held by a definite minority in French)--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on Lysiane Gagnon

Newspaper editor Lysiane Gagnon has identified Québécois as an ethnonym for French Canadian.

I believe this overstates what she says. The English source is inaccessible, and in the French source [8], it seems this is what Soulscanner is referring to:

Pour être exact, il faudrait parler des "Québécois francophones de vieille souche". C'est trop long. Donc on dit "Québécois", dans le sens ethnique du mot.

First it should be noted that this is an opinion column. I think a fairer reflection of the facts would be this: "Journalist Lysiane Gagnon has referred to an "ethnic sense" of the word Québécois."

I think it's in better taste if we don't attach to Gagnon the attribute "federalist", but I understand that some people here might like us to be consistent with what tends to be done on the English Wikipedia for "sovereigntist". Joeldl (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this part of the column:

Même chez les francophones de vieille souche, le mot "Québécois" est devenu, dans la langue populaire, synonyme de "Canadien français".

I think a fairer reflection of this would be:

• Lysiane Gagnon has stated that Québécois has become, in vernacular language, a synonym for "French Canadian".

I'll briefly address why this claim shouldn't be considered as more than her opinion. She bases it on the existence of utterances like these:

• "Dans ma classe, il y a autant d'Arabes et de Haïtiens que de Québécois." "In my class, there are as many Haitians and Arabs as Québécois."

But one could easily imagine Americans saying something like "there are as many Mexicans in my class as there are Americans." People would react to a sentence like that as insulting and as an incorrect use of language. It is absolutely the same thing in Gagnon's example, and she makes the concession "in vernacular labguage". In any case, this shows that one of the very sources introduced by Soulscanner to justify his claim of the existence an ethnic sense concedes that the purported ethnic sense is not on par in terms of acceptability with the territorial meaning. Joeldl (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Lysiane Gagnon is not suggesting in her opinion piece that Quebecois is an ethnonym in the correct language, that is obvious.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also tried to say why it would be a mistake to rely on her authority, even with respect to vernacular language, rather than that of dictionaries. On her arguments, if the purported ethnic meaning exists, then it should also exist for "American", and editors with a reasonably sympathetic view of English-speaking Americans (I'm straining to avoid saying "without a grudge against") would never allow an "ethnic meaning" of American to be presented as an unqualified fact. Joeldl (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Americans. Paralells can more appropriately be made to Acadian, Metis, Cajuns, Canadien, Newfoundlander or French Canadian, as they are in the study. Quebec government dictionaries have a strong nationalist bias; they are generally based on a prescriptive ideology, and unless one knows the bias of their editors, one cannot say they are neutral. These ideological POV's need to be discussed int he article to make the section on dictionaries more balanced.

Also, implicit in the above critiques is this prescriptive philosophy about what "correct" language is; "correct language" is based not on what people think is politically correct or "proper", but on how people actually use the language. If over 1 million Quebecers identify Quebecois as their ethnicity in an official census study, and if it is documented in a study on ethnicity, I think that makes it worthy to include in an article that describes the usage of the word; as a matter of fact, it speaks to the very heart or the matter, and actually clarifies the reasons behind the words ambiguity. If there are notable critiques of this study, and there undoubtedly are, then these should be summarized and referenced here. Unfortunately, that is not being done. We are just given personal commentaries that are clearly original research. It has been repeatedly pointed out to the same editors that this is about how language IS used, not about how we would like it used. We don't delete articles, deny usages just because we do not like what is documented in them. We've been through this before. --soulscanner (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making essentially the following argument, and I will paraphrase: "The dictionaries are biased. They are mistaken in omitting an ethnic sense. Lysiane Gagnon proves it by giving examples." I am saying why there are weaknesses in this argument, not proposing that our discussion on this talk page be imported into the article. Joeldl (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This arguement about why certain definitions are excluded in dictionaries is hypothetical; it doesn't reflect my real POV. The point is, I cannot back it up with references; that is why I do not put it in the article. It is based on speculation, as is your theory for why it appears in some disctionaries and not in others; you do not back up your with referenced commentary, only your own original research. My argument and yours merely speculate about why some dictionaries and some authors document these usages. You speculate that the French usage is different than that used in Quebec, and conclude that the Petit Robert is not valid valid in Quebec for this definition. The point is, any claims about this need to backed up by direct references that explain why the definition is used in some sources, and not in others. Lysiane gagnon is a legitimate source, and she makes concrete observation of how language is used in the vernacular in Quebec. it illucidates why the term is controversial and ambiguous in Quebec. If there are commentators who counter that this usage is not "proper", by all means lets include those. However, you cannot deny that many Quebecers hear it used that way everyday, whether they think it is right or wrong, or wheter or not they are misinterpreting it. The fact is, over 1 million identify their ancestry as Quebecois. That tells you about how the word is used and perceived in Quebec, and how strongly it is perceived as such, and perfectly relevant here. If there are Quebecers that object to this in published sources, or better yet, demographic and ethnic studies that explicitly reject this definition, please add these to the section. It might illucidate why the word is omitted as "imroper" in some dictionaries,and allow people to draw their their own conclusions. --soulscanner (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, you are drawing your own conclusions about what the census and EDS data mean. Then you're saying that those conclusions should be accepted as fact, by Wikipedia saying "Québécois is an ethnonym." I am saying that the fact that most dictionaries, including all those published in Canada that we've consulted, do not include an ethnic meaning, and that one dictionary explicitly contrasted the "ethnological" Canadien français and the "territorial" Québécois, with Benson making a similar distinction, is enough for us to adopt caution and avoid making unequivocal statements like "Québécois is an ethnonym", which is what you would like to do. Even Gagnon, in her opinion column, qualifies her statement by saying "dans la langue populaire". Joeldl (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Seperate sections on ethnographic studies and French usage added

Seperate section added on census and ethnographic studies. These studies clearly refer to Canadians, Canadiens, French Canadians, French as ethnic gropus, and to Acadians, Newfoundlanders, and the Quebecois as regionoal ethnic groups. They do not discuss identity; there is another section on identity with studies that do.

Discussion of dictionary definitions pertain exclusively to French usage; this is added to section on French usage of word. More needsto be said of the linguistic and ideological biases inherent to French and Quebec dictionaries, as they are considerable. This would balance what is a slanted POV in this section.--soulscanner (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this new sectioning appears to be to give prominence to the disputed uses Soulscanner claims, displacing the very ordinary and unremarkable use as a territorial term elsewhere. How can you seriously claim that several sections should be occupied by a sense whose existence is disputed, and that they should come first? In addition to POV statements made by Soulscanner throughout the article, we now have the issue of prominence-related POV to contend with. Joeldl (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead on ethnographic studies

Two editors here have expressed an objection to including the main findings of a study that clearly identifies the Quebecois as an ethnic group. They do this based on personal commentary criticizing the methodology of these studies without providing any sourced references. Clearly such POV pushing is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is one of these editors introduced the topic of "Quebecois as an ethnonym", yet reject legitimate referenced sources that discuss the topic in ways that run contrary to their personal POV.--soulscanner (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a section on "Québécois as a possible ethnonym" because previously the article stated this as a blunt fact. I am not pushing POV, and I do not object to the methodology of the EDS. My objections centre on your characterization of the findings and the conclusions you draw. The most egregious conclusion is that Québécois is an ethnonym, when by the same reasoning Canadian would have to be one too, which is clearly problematic. Joeldl (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Becasue it is a fact. Some dictionaries include as an ethnonym in addition to the territorial definition; the territorialdefiniation is identified first, and clearly identified as the most common one. That is fair. You simply want the definition removed because you do not like it. Why is it legitmate when you want to talk about it, but not when other people offer sources that clearly use it as such? If we'regoing to discuss Quebecois as ethnonym or ethnic, lets include all sources. Just because these sources contradict your POV is no reson to delete them or change their findingswhen they speak directly to the topic of how Quebecois is used in an academic context. --soulscanner (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of Consensus

Two editors have suggested that the name of the article be changed, reiterating and revisiting the same arguments that have already been clearly rejected [9]. Here's a review of the deciding rationales for keeping the page and setting it's scope:

• The first explains that Quebecois is a loaded term with cultural and historical contexts that other terms do not have. The need to explain these contexts is specifically identified as a key element in the decision to keep this article. [[10]]
• Another clearly identifies that controversies surrounding this term are intrinsically noteworthy, and should be documented in an encyclopedia. [11] The use of Quebecois as an ethnonym is precisely such a contoversy. if it is controversial, it is precisely because some people, academics, demographers, and ordinary people, use the term and others do not. I encourage you to add other sources that elucidate the various arguements for and against the use of Quebecois as an ethnonym, and to clearly indicate their political, ideological and cultural POV.
• This post clearly states that the term has its own history, making the historical evolution of the term in politics, culture, and identity a legitimate topic. [12].

The editors are attempting to stifle new additions by limiting the scope of the article to a summary of dictionary entries, an argument that was explicitly rejected in the discussion above that decided to keep this article. Everone is perfectly within their rights to question the balance here, but also must show good faith by accepting the consensus and adding thier own referenced content to balance what may indeed be a slanted POV. Please accept the consensus and help by adding and summarizing other studies that include other historical, cultural, and political perspectives that may be missing. The referenced sources that the editors have provided are both useful and legitimate, as have some of their edits. I do submit, though, that continued discussion of deleting or moving this page shows a contempt for a clear consensus, particularly since this page has continued to evolve and grow since this consensus was established. If editors wish to balance this article with other referenced sources, I welcome them to do so and discuss these sources here. This article does need improving, and I invite them to take part as they obviously know of other sources that could help in understanding the varied nuances of the term Quebecois. I also ask that they desist from making specious claims of pushing POV. Any POV's mentioned here are not by own as they are not relevant on Wikipedia, but referenced POV's summarizing the views of wel-known public figures and academic researchers. --soulscanner (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, you cannot base yourself on a past AfD to define what consensus is. As you must know, consensus can change, as you've demonstrated on the Quebec article. I believe this change has just happened. I would suggest that the other editors have some valid points (about the ethnonym being the contention of a few, and not an established fact), and that you try to forge a wording that is acceptable to both camps, rather than digging your heels on your own position, as this is exactly what you now come across as doing.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can. It represents a strong consensus for keeping the page as is. To get it reversed, you have to fromally go through that procedurre again. Ask for a reference. Try moving this page. See what happens. Ask mathieugp. He tried it with a couple of other editors who thought that consensus had changed without consulting other editors first. --soulscanner (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, NO. It represents a past consensus for not deleting the page, and as with any consensus, it can change with time. You will also note that several editors expressed an opinion on the AfD that the article needed some extensive rewriting. I'm not saying it should be deleted. I'm saying that, as is, it misrepresents the use of Quebecois as an ethnonym, as it presents it as a blunt fact, rather than as a collection of scattered references, none of which are authoritative in my opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that consensus has changed. You cannot change consensus on your own. --soulscanner (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is about not deleting the article. I'm not challenging that one. I'm challenging points of the content of the article, not its existence. And I'm not alone. So, no there isn't a consensus here, and nobody's in breach of anything by challenging the content of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome well-sourced information about any such debate on the meaning of Québécois, but at the moment the only debate is the one on this talk page about whether an ethnic meaning exists and what its status is if it does exist. What we have is: 1) the various dictionary entries; 2) the développement encyclopédique from the DFP; 3) the quote from Benson above; 4) the opinion columns by Lysiane Gagnon. None of these refer to an actual debate, but simply state positions on the matter without any reference to opposing points of view, except implicitly Gagnon by qualifying her statement with "dans la langue populaire". Joeldl (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Then add them. Find references that offer points of view.I fully invide them.

I'll point out that we also have a census and study of of ethnicity in Quebec that uses this definition. That is legitimate academic source. Do you doubt this? --soulscanner (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

100,000 people said they were of Québécois ancestry in the census. 250,000 said "American (USA)". 10,000,000 or so said "Canadian". That does not make these ethnonyms. As for the EDS, many people said they had a "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" or "Newfoundlander" ethnic or cultural identity. That does not make these ethnonyms. The studies you're referring to, and I think this is the 50th time I've said this, are merely acknowledging the responses given, not stating themselves that there is such a thing as a "Newfoundlander" or "Canadian" ethnic group.

I don't know why you're telling me' to find anything. My primary interest here is to prevent inaccurate information from being included, such as the unqualified statement that Québécois is an ethnonym. I have indicated many times the reasons I believe the totality of sources presented, taken together, do not support this in the unqualified way you claim.

I will not be contributing for the next little while, but I would like to express the hope that this article will in future be edited according to consensus. Joeldl (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have time or the inclination to engage in any edit wars, but I'd like to point out the kind of information Soulscanner is removing. This edit [13] takes the cake. I don't have time to deal with this, but I view this as a completely illegitimate action for an editor. Please somebody watch over this page. Joeldl (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Building mountains out of molehills

I believe the possible use of Quebecois as an ethnonym needs to be addressed more carefully. One cannot base oneself on the opinion of a lone newspaper editor and on a single census-derived survey to affirm "Quebecois is an ethnonym". At most, if one is to respect WP:NPOV, these opinions should be attributed, and one should refrain from original research, i.e. drawing conclusions not expressly drawn by the studies one is referring to. The contention that Canadian isn't an ethnonym while Quebecois is, is to say the least, a self-contradiction. Why these shouldn't be treated side by side, the logic escapes me. But I know that for neutrality and encyclopaedicity's sake, we need to attribute these opinions, and not present them as blunt facts; as they aren't.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up of Census Ethnographic studies section

• Added correct questions for Ethnic Diversity Survey. Please link to given reference for confirmation.
• Removed disputed claims.

--soulscanner (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead clearly says that quebecois can refer to any Quebecer, but usually refers to francophones, as cited in given sources. --soulscanner (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Québécois, as a French word, from the perspective of those who identify as such

In The Canadian Encyclopedia's English-language article on the Estates General of French Canada, the territorial nature of the new Quebec nationalism and corresponding national identity is very strongly implied in these words:

""These radical changes to what was then called French Canadian nationalism were quickly interpreted by representatives of French-speaking communities outside Québec as abandonment of French Canada and of francophones residing outside the Québécois national territory (see FRENCH CANADIAN NATIONALISM). These changes, approved by the delegates to the national conferences, gave rise to debates during discussions on the resolution of French Canadians' right to self-determination. Recognizing Québec, among other things, as the national territory of French Canada, the resolution led some representatives outside Québec to show their scorn during interventions and voting. Franco-Ontarians rejected the resolution while French-speaking people in the West were equally divided in their votes among acceptance, rejection, and abstention. However, the majority of Acadians (52%) and Québec delegates (98%) supported the resolution."[14]

In this other Canadian Encyclopedia article, this time on "French-Canadian nationalism", unfortunately not translated to English, there is more than just a strong implication, the political and territorial nature is bluntly stated as historical fact (my translation):

From the events of October 1970 (see OCTOBER CRISIS) to the REFERENDUM OF 1980 passing through the arrival to power of the Parti québécois in 1976, a political formation voicing sovereignty, one does not count the multiple ways there were, for more than 10 years, to claim to be representative of both Marxism and independentist nationalism. The class struggles and alliances contributed to the perception of the question of Québec as a phenomenon participating to the trial of the dislocation of the Canadian State. But the end of the the ideological preponderance of MARXISM, marked by the critic of totalitarianisms, conferred to the post-referendum years (after May 1980) all their vigours to the democratic ideas inspiring a new way of returning to the question of Québec, question this time defining the Quebec nation in terms of a political entity able to unite various sociocultural communities, and for which sovereignty is presented as an answer to the chanllenge of Quebec society's pluralism.

[...]

The plea for a sovereign Québec calls upon a modern, secular, pluralist society opened to the world. Something which many designate as a "civic" or "territorial" nationalism addressing all citizens without regard to the particularisms of their origin. The expressed nationalism is no longer founded on identity or the idea of a common descent marked with or accused of xenophobia, but on the citizenship of a people sharing a common history, the same institutions and identification to a common territory. Such a national sentiment is also said to be social since it favours inclusion, and appeals to a culture of convergence respectful of democratic values. It is this time the affirmation of a society opened to the world, of a nationalism which positions the sovereign State of Québec inside the system of world exchanges and increasing interdependence among States.[15]

These excerpts of the article are part of the final Political Emancipation section which succeeds the Survivance section, ending with the Quiet Revolution.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

remove "but usually refers in English to a French-speaking native of the province"

Hi everyone. I noticed that this part of the article " but usually refers in English to a French-speaking native of the province" is inappropriate and lacks references. The four references are not talking about this "fact". Quebecois and Quebeckers are synonyms and refer to inhabitants of the quebec province. If nobody discusses it, I will change it. Thank you, Durham 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.114.15 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

remove "In English, Quebecer or Quebecker (pronounced /kwɪˈbɛkɚ/ or /kəˈbɛkɚ/) is used to refer to any resident of Quebec, including English-speaking, allophone, or Aboriginal residents of Quebec.[5]"

Hi. The reference for "In English, Quebecer or Quebecker (pronounced /kwɪˈbɛkɚ/ or /kəˈbɛkɚ/) is used to refer to any resident of Quebec, including English-speaking, allophone, or Aboriginal residents of Quebec.[5]" is not accurate and I will remove this sentence if no one discusses it. Thank you. Durham 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.114.15 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

remove Quebec french

Hi, you have no references for Quebec french, so it will be removed as well. Durham 2008

"With a lower-case initial, the word québécois is also used to refer to Quebec French, a variety of the French language spoken by Quebec's population. As an adjective, it can refer to Quebec's francophone culture or population or the culture of the native French speaking population living in Quebec." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.114.15 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a Québécois and "québécois" usualy refers to "something from Quebec" (un dictionnaire québécois) or "Quebec French" (Je parle québécois). Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec! ^talk

Yes, that is in french. But the point here is that the references they put are not good. Durham2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.114.15 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You don’t have to remove something because it is unreferenced. Many times, even if not referenced, the statement is right. You just have to add a {{fact}} tag where you think it *needs* a reference. Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec! ^talk 03:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible variation on /kebeˈkwa/ >>> /kebɛˈkwa/

I'm a French Quebecer and as far as I can remember I have always used the pronounciation /kebɛˈkwa/. I don't know if it's just that I never realized that it wasn't properly pronounced, but I'm sure that I've heard plenty of French Quebecers say with a "ɛ" instead of a "e". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus911 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Québécois to refer to purported ethnic group

Months ago, various editors, including myself, stated their view that there was not sufficient justification for treating "Québécois" as an ethnic designation in French. Soulscanner, against the opinions of others, has persisted in including this information, and has actually removed dispute tags in the intervening period, without gaining any support for his position. I'm restoring the dispute tags. Please do not remove them until consensus is achieved to do so. Joeldl (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is not true. I've never added the ethnobox. I've always respected this convention. Please assume good faith.

As for refering to Quebecois as an ethnic group, this is legitimate usage. The section clearly refers to census studies that identify document Quebecers who self-identify ethnically as Quebecois. It's documented. --soulscanner (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any infobox. I'm referring to the statements in the article that Québécois can be an ethnic term in French. Ramdrake and I, at the very least, said that your sources did not adequately support your assertions. You were not supported by anybody else. Normally, that would be enough to remove the disputed material. When I've tried to do that in the past, I've found that I wouldn't be able to do it without an edit war, despite majority opinion here. So what I did do was put dispute tags in certain places in the article. Those normally shouldn't be removed unless there's consensus to remove them. Since then, some editors may well have gotten tired of arguing on the talk page, but that doesn't mean consensus changed. Yet you removed the tags. That's what I'm saying was inappropriate. Joeldl (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian census says that the Quebecois are an ethnic group. Do you dispute that the Canadian Census, in two seperate surveys, refers to the Quebecois as an ethnic group? Is this hard, referenced fact the reason you wish to see all links to this page removed? --soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, what you've just said is precisely what we've been saying is an inappropriate interpretation of the sources. First, this pertains to respondents' answers, not any authors' views. Second, "Canadian" was the number one ethnic origin in Canada in the 2006 census: [16] 10,066,290 Canadians identified their ethnic origin as "Canadian"; "Québécois" was in 34th position at 146,585, behind "American" at 316,350 and "Belgian" at 168,910. Even if a third of Canadians gave their ethnic origin as "Canadian", that does not make "Canadian" the name of an ethnic group. That one or two percent of Quebecers identified themselves as "Québécois" likewise cannot make "Québécois" an ethnic group. Yet this is what you're arguing. Joeldl (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Firstly, the census is an important and significant document. Two census surveys identify the Quebecois as an ethnic group. Both are reported, and the methodolology documented. You mention the first. The second more detailed and less biased Ethnic Diversity Survey, also part of the census, is also reported. The numbers and methodology are also given: Québécois was the most common ethnic identity in Quebec, reported by 37% of Quebec's population aged 15 years and older, either as their only identity or alongside other identities. That is a significant number, with close to 3 million people spontaneously choosing this as their ethnicity. Is there any compelling reason to delete the results of this survey? Do you have any similar surveys that contradict these results? --soulscanner (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Canadian" is not the name of an ethnic group. It's a common response to that census question. Nowhere in any source adduced so far does any writer suggest that it is an ethnic group. As for the "Ethnic Diversity Survey", I don't see any reason that it's more or less biased than the census. Also, your writing confuses "ethnic and cultural identity" and "ethnic origin". You deleted from the article the full question asked by interviewers, which specifically invited respondents to distinguish their own ethnic and cultural identity from that of their ancestors. In these circumstances, it was natural that a large number of people would answer something other than "French" or "British". You are making selective and incorrect use of data.

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Consensus has not changed on this issue. You're simply going to need to convince fellow editors. You cannot take the fact that some people are unwilling to continue to argue with you as consent on their part. Joeldl (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat: The Ethnic Diversity survey states: Québécois was the most common ethnic identity in Quebec, reported by 37% of Quebec's population aged 15 years and older, either as their only identity or alongside other identities. Do you accept this as a significant result? I don't know what else to say. The study speaks for itself, and I deliberately quoted the study so that no one could misinterpret the results.

Canadian wasn't used in Quebec "Canadien" was. That is different. Canadien means "French Canadian". It's the ambiguity around this poor translation that prompted the Ethnic Diversity survey in the first place. That's why this survey is authoritative. You can't just delete the results of a scientific survey just 37% of the population doesn't share your views on ethnicity.--soulscanner (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A majority of editors who have expressed an opinion on the issue have said that you are mischaracterizing the information in the sources. You have done so in the article and you are doing it here. I am saying this: Before removing dispute tags, gain consensus to do so. You cannot interpret other editors' unwillingness to continue arguing forever as a change in consensus. Joeldl (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the personal POV's of editors are inconsequential, put they do not represent consensus and do not override referenced facts. Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Editors do not require the permission of editor cabals to include the verbatim results of comprehensive studies such as the Ethnic Diversity Survey. If you have a referenced critique of the survey, I encourage you to post it. But please do not pretend that the results persented here are not authoratative. I'll also request that you remove the bold. It gives the impression of shouting. I also perceive the tone as agressive. Please be civil. Everyone has the right to add referenced material to the article. --soulscanner (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The 68.2% of Quebecers reporting Canadien/Canadian as their ethnicity were on the first Census survey, not the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS). Moved this number to the paragraph on the orignal Census survey, and provided the actual supporting reference. I can find nowhere in the EDS where this number is provided. --soulscanner (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both moves have been approved by consensus. As this is not a deletion discussion, the April 2007 deletion discussion is not relevant here; I also note that discussions which are well over a year old show no evidence of current consensus, see Consensus can change. All other arguments basically boil down to how ambiguous this term is. A clear majority of editors feel that it is ambiguous enough that there is no primary topic, so having a disambiguation page at the ambiguous term makes sense. The same majority feel that this article could be better disambiguated by adding "(word)", so that is what will happen.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to expand on my rationale by User:Soulscanner. I have copied his points and my responses below.

Point 1: The principle argument against moving is that there are no pages to disambiguate. My understanding is that disambiguation pages are not there to explain terms with ambiguous meanings or serve as a primary page for a topic; they are there to disambiguate articles with similar titles. There are no competing articles vying for the single term "Quebecois" at this moment, nor are any being proposed. Hence, there is demonstrably a primary topic until someone wants to name another article "Quebecois".

Response to point 1: Disambiguation is required when there is more than one topic associated with a given article title, not just when article titles conflict. A look at the disambiguation page (now at Quebecois) gives 7 possible different meanings. A disambiguation page is located at the ambiguous term when there is no primary topic. Consensus here seems to be that there is no primary topic.

Point 2: Majority votes do not constitute consensus and should not be cited as the reason for moving the page; arguments need to be made to justify a move, and your decision cites this as the reason for your move. Hence, the there is no rationale for a move.

Response to point 2: Yes, reading consensus is not simply taking a head count. However, there were no concrete arguments below that established what the primary meaning of the word Quebecois actually is. In the absence of strong arguments on either side, it's impossible to consider the strength of the arguments, so it essentially defaults to a head count. If an overwhelming majority of editors are in favor of something, and there is no policy-supported reason to defeat their arguments, then consensus should follow the majority. In this case, with 5 in favor and 2 against, there is enough consensus for the moves.

Point 3: References to other pages on other topics should not weigh in any decision here. It appears that many of the arguments to move the page offer paralels to other pages as arguments to move this one.

Response to point 3: There is a difference between citing other pages as precedent and using other pages as analogies. The arguments below that do cite other pages are using them as analogies to the current situation, and not as binding precedents.

I hope this gives more insight into my reasoning.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Québécois → Québécois (word), Québécois (disambiguation) → Québécois — Parallel to American (word) It was agreed long ago by most people here that the title Québécois, because of its ambiguity and perhaps other reasons, was unsuitable as a basic page for information about Quebecers in general, or for French-speaking Quebecers in particular. (For example, the idea of having an ethnic group infobox was rejected.) It was agreed that this page should be limited to a discussion of the use of the term. As one can tell from this talk page (and its archives), the very meaning of the term has been the subject of heated disagreement. Yet the word is used on many other pages, and this page then gets linked to. When using the word Québécois in another article, editors may variously have in mind that the person they're referring to is a Quebecer (territorial identity), a French-speaking Quebecer (linguistic identity, including non-French ethnic groups), or a French Canadian Quebecer (ethnic or cultural identity). They should link to one of those pages, rather than to Québécois, which discusses the word and not the people. The page that is currently named Québécois (disambiguation) should in turn be moved to Québécois. — Joeldl (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support I proposed the move. Joeldl (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Ramdrake (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Mathieugp (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. --soulscanner (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Note that arguements here all follow Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois

I've just had a look at that deletion debate (in which I did not take part). It was about 7 in favour of deletion or a redirect to Quebec, and 7 for keeping the article. Those who were opposed to deletion generally said they were because the issue of the meaning of the word was notable enough to be written about (although some also said POV cleanup would be necessary).

But the fact that there might be something to say about the meaning of the word beyond WP:DICDEF doesn't mean that that should be talked about at Québécois rather than at Québécois (word). People who link to Québécois generally want something about the people, but as I've said, this is ambiguous, and even the meaning you might argue is primary in English, namely Francophone Quebecer, is best covered at an article with that or a similarly precise name.

Your invocation (below) of a narrow "consensus" for non-deletion is also moot because: a) looking at the balance of opinion, it was really a "no consensus"; b) deletion is a different topic than a move; c) it was a year and a half ago; d) one editor who was then in favour of keeping the article has now voted for the move; and e) one other editor who was against deletion has since stated on this talk page that Wikipedia should usually avoid using the term Québécois itself, for reasons of neutrality. It follows that this should not be the location for an article about francophone Quebecers, viewed as a linguistic group. Joeldl (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is more than an article about a word, it is also about the people of Quebec, the ethnic group, and nationalism and all those meanings are wrapped up in the word. If an article is linked to this article for information on French Canadians, that link should be changed; if this article is being linked for information on Quebec, that link should be changed. I think French-speaking Quebecer should be merged to a section here. Further, I think the Québécois (disambiguation) page should be deleted and Le Québécois can be a hatnote. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• What you seem to be proposing is that this page should be the main page about the French-speaking people of Quebec. I strongly oppose the use of a vague word like Québécois for that purpose. First of all, in English it is not unambiguous. In the aftermath of the motion recogizing the "Québécois" as a nation (an unprecedented use of the word in English in a legal context, and a choice made by Stephen Harper) people were left in doubt as to what was meant by the English text - see the CBC story What is a Québécois? Quebecers ask. Second, the fact that the word is the normal one for "Quebecer" (without an ethnic connotation) in French means that it is not in any way a term of self-reference used by francophone Quebecers to refer to themselves as such. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission used the expressions "French Canadian Quebecer" and "francophone Quebecer" to refer to the ethnic and linguistic groups respectively. They would never have dreamt of using the word Québécois, and explicitly rejected even the use of "Québécois de souche", for that purpose. Joeldl (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Many reasons why this article is important and about more than the word. I said French-speaking Quebecer should be a section of this article. The context of the whole idea is important. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to me to use the page Québécois as the primary location for information about a linguistic or ethnic group, whether that information is a section of the page or the whole thing. The word American is currently a disambiguation page. Even if it weren't, it wouldn't be made into a page about White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans. Joeldl (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What does Québécois mean in English and is that a notable concept? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus says "yes". Again, we've already discussed all this here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois. --soulscanner (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to prevent the notable concept of the people from being discussed at the synonymous, but less vague Francophone Quebecer, or at French Canadian (of whom 80% are Quebecers), and the word at Québécois (word). When the word simply means Quebecer, as is possible, then do what's done for Canadian - redirect to Quebec.

My dictionary (Merriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate) says that it means "a native or inhabitant of Quebec; specif : a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec." Note that the "French-speaking" part is optional. Note also that the dictionary defines Canuck as "a Canadian and esp. a French Canadian." This says nothing about the acceptability of the term in serious discourse. Granted, Québécois is more likely to be used than Canuck in serious work. But nobody - really nobody - will ever write "4% of anglophone Quebecers supported the PQ, while 40% of Québécois did." This will always be "francophone Quebecers" or "French-speaking Quebecers," because that's what you write when you're thinking about using appropriate terminology. Joeldl (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, consensus says that Quebecois is a controversial term that deserves its own page, and it makes sense that any reference to tgat word direct here; that is the whole point of keeping the article. This is the consensus reached when it was decided not to delete the page. Again, the link explaining this is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois. Please respect this consensus. --soulscanner (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of people who thought there should be an article about the term. Why not at Québécois (word)? That way links to the meanings Quebecer, Francophone Quebecer, or French Canadian can be directed appropriately. I'll bet most editors who type in a link to Québécois don't think they're linking to an article that discusses the term itself. Much like people who type in Canadian, they anticipate an appropriate redirect. Joeldl (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already been determined in the deletion discussion that Quebecois is different than Canadian in its political contexts; this argument has already been rejected. Moreover, please acknowledge the following wikipedia convention: "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles." [Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names] What's done on other articles should not enter into the argument; the subject should be discussed on its own merits.--soulscanner (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether there should be a page about the word is one matter; whether links like "Québécois composer" should link to this article about the word or to Quebec is another. Joeldl (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That needs to be handled on a case by case basis at the pages in question. They may or may not be appropriate, but that's not of any consequence here. The whole point of having an article on wikipedia is to make it easy for people to link to it; I've pointed that out in the links to wikipolicy above. If you have a problem with the way articles on composers, authors, etc. are written, discuss it at the talk page of the article in question. You can't obliterate a page from wikipedia just because other people wikify their pages in a way you disapprove of. --soulscanner (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe most editors linking here intend to link to an article about how the word is used. Examining the pages that link to Québécois reveals that linking to a page discussing the word is inappropriate in the vast majority of cases. Article naming is supposed to make wikilinking as easy as possible. It is not feasible or desirable to have a discussion at each of hundreds of individual articles. A

As for readers typing the word in, I believe it is better to give them a clear choice between the different meanings they may have intended (which are listed at Québécois (disambiguation)), rather than take them straight to an article about how the word is used. The article about the word will still be one of the choices on the disambiguation page, though.

An alternative would have been to link straight to Quebec, and to leave Québécois (disambiguation) where it was. I didn't propose that because I thought that at the moment the current proposal would more easily gain consensus. Joeldl (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Moving the article to Québécois (word) will make clear the intended scope of that article, and the disambiguation page should be at the ambiguous page name. An article about Québécois culture would be, erm, another article. --Una Smith (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That may be the intended scope for you or others but I believe it needs to be a great deal more than that. Clearly, the primary meaning of the word Québécois is at this article. Most of the articles at disambiguation don't even have the word in the article title. Articles that link to this article and readers that follow that link should find information on the the meanings, controversy, and context. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • What you're really arguing is that this should be made a general article about the people, which it isn't currently, because most people have found Québécois to be an unsuitable title for that, including me. In any case, that's a separate argument from saying that the current article about the term should or shouldn't be moved to Québécois (word). Most links to Québécois throughout the encyclopedia, as in "Québécois composer", should link to Quebec, just as "Canadian composer" links to Canada. Joeldl (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That should be corrected and/or discussed on each article not corrected by moving this article. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm saying that your position that this should be made a more general article about "Québécois" (whoever they may be), is not likely to find sufficient support, based on previous discussions. The move proposal is based on the status quo that this article discusses the term. Joeldl (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        • And I think the balance of incoming links is a legitimate consideration. It's not feasible to discuss an issue on hundreds of talk pages. It can be anticipated that many editors who link to Québécois assume the link will be directed appropriately. Joeldl (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
          • And you interpret them not meaning to link to this article but perhaps they did intend it. Why would someone write that X is a Québécois yyy and how is this article not appropriate information for someone who follows that link to learn about Québécois? DoubleBlue (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, I do, if by "learn about Québécois" you mean "learn about the word Québécois," and that's precisely what I'm submitting to the judgment of editors here. When an editor writes that so-and-so is an American author, readers are not directed to American (word) to learn about all the ambiguity in how the word is used in English. If by "learn about Québécois," you mean the people, I would say Quebec is a good destination in most cases, just as Canadian redirects to Canada. On occasions where reference to ethnicity or language is judged appropriate in the context of an article, French Canadian and Francophone Quebecer are better alternatives, in which these attributes are made explicit. Joeldl (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Your comparison, again, with American is no a valid one on wikipedia. It's not a valid discussion point.

"Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another ... Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.[[17]]

Please respect wikipedia guidelines regarding justification for naming conventions; comparison to other articles add nothing to the dialogue.--soulscanner (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose: Comment I'm willing to consider the move provided that we can document frequent common uses of the word other than the cultural context considered here. As it stands, this page documents almost all possible meanings listed on the disambiguation page, but with documented references and more in depth explanations; there is no need to qualify this page, just like there is no need to qualify Quebec (province), Canada (nation), or Irish (people). All the documentation here is still valid. To underscore this:

• We've been through all of this before when the page was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion by essentially the same editors. One could interpret this as Wikipedia:Forum_shopping#Forum_shopping: "This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, RFC, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted."
• Going through a disambiguation page to link to "Quebecois" violates the first tenet of wikipedia naming conventions "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." It should be easy to link to a page for readers interested in reading about what Quebecois means. (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name).
• "Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail."(see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names)
• It's a false distinction to differentiate the word from the people in English. The word "Quebecois" in English overwhelmingly refers to aspects of the Quebec people, especially francophones and French Canadians (i.e. Quebecois language, Quebecois people, Quebecois nation, Quebecois culture, Quebecois literature, etc.) The article clearly documents this.
• The American (word) precedent is irrelevant: "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles."(see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names))
• If you do a search in English, all references on the disambiguation page refer to the various meanings documented here, except the magazine. I think the usage documented here is sufficiently predominant.
• All the meanings listed in the disambiguation page are thoroughly discussed and explained here; the disambiguation page therefore contains redundant, undocumented information better described here. This article provides verifiable documentation than can help readers confirm any meaning they may be interested in if they come across the word; the disambiguation cannot.

--soulscanner (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment to the closing administrator: Please note that the editor who has "opposed" above, Soulscanner, has already voted in the Survey section. Joeldl (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am the one who proposed this page move. Contrary to Soulscanner's contention above that the AfD nomination was made by "essentially the same editors", I did not even participate in the AfD debate. Also, contrary to Soulscanner's assertion That I have "forum-shopped", I have never proposed anything like a page move in any forum. Joeldl (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that most links would be more appropriately directed to Quebec, French-speaking Quebecer, or French Canadian. It's hard to know whether people have ethnicity in mind when they write that someone is a a "Québécois composer" and the like, since reference to French Canadianness is often implicit when the word "Québécois" is used in English. But in any case, I generally think it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to a person's ethnicity for no particular reason.

To take what I think is a typical example, the page Pyongyang (comics) says this:

• "Pyongyang (published in English as Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea) is a black and white graphic novel by the Canadian Quebecois author Guy Delisle, published in 2004."

In my opinion, this should be recast as "by the Quebec author Guy Delisle" or as "by the Canadian author Guy Delisle." If mention of ethnicity is essential, "French Canadian author Guy Delisle" would do. But there is absolutely no reason to link to an article about the use of the word Québécois, especially seeing as there's not even a link to Quebec or to Canada.

Articles about English Canadians do not usually refer to their ethnicity. For example:

• "Stephen Butler Leacock, Ph.D , FRSC (30 December 1869 – 28 March 1944) was a Canadian writer and economist."

The editor could have written English Canadian, but chose Canadian, and linked to Canada. It's a double standard and a bad habit to single out French Canadians for mention of their ethnic background when it's not relevant. At most, the choice should focus on whether to link to Quebec or to Canada.

For another comparison, the article for Michael Jordan says in its lead:

• "Michael Jeffrey Jordan (born February 17, 1963) is a retired American professional basketball player and active businessman."

The word "American" links to United States, not to American (word), and certainly not to African American.

Linking Québécois to a disambiguation page will have the merit of forcing people to think about what it is they're talking about, and whether reference to ethnicity or language is appropriate. When such reference is made, it should be made explicitly, without recourse to a vague word like Québécois. (For example, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission used "French-Canadian Quebecer" when reference to ethnicity was necessary, and "francophone Quebecer" when reference to language was necessary.) Joeldl (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To Soulscanner, from your own quoting of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The very thing we're discussing here is that Quebecois may have several different meanings depending on context, and therefore is ambiguous. This is why a disambig page at this point would be much preferable to this coatrack approach to the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the article on Leacock doesn't say Ontarian writer and economist. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't take a position on whether in a particular case using Quebec or Canada is most appropriate. That will depend to some extent on sources, and also on self-identification. What is clear is that it is absolutely POV to translate a self-identification as Québécois in French as Québécois rather than "Quebecer" in English. Doing so emphasizes ethnicity for no reason.

As for Soulscanner's accusation of forum-shopping, I did not even participate in the previous request for deletion, so why is he accusing me of that? Joeldl (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same reason you accused me of violating the consensus by placing the ethnobox here: faulty memory and hasty assumptions. My apologies; see what happens when you don't assume good fait?

Please read the unsuccessfull deletion nomination. You are just rehashing the arguments made there. You are in fact documenting more common usage of the word Quebecois above. If you don't like it in the above article, discuss it there, but this issue has been discussed here before. The crux of the issue is that you may disagree with this usage, but most people use it this way. Wikipedia is about documenting how things are, not how we'd like them to be. This usage is perfectly acceptable and common. if anything, this article documents how complex the usage is. --soulscanner (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say you violated the consensus? Other people have done that recently, I haven't, not that I disagree with them. What I said was that there was a consensus. (For the consensus about the ethnic infobox, please see Talk:Québécois/Archive 2#Question 1 - in fact, you agreed with the consensus.) I think that the way Wikipedia chooses to structure itself internally, and what words it uses to refer to particular things, is a separate issue from writing about how other people use words. And you will not find many reputable social scientists who would use the word Québécois to refer to an ethnic group. Just because the sense exists doesn't mean it's appropriate usage in scientific discourse. Wikipedia should follow the usage of experts. What term did the Bouchard-Taylor Commission use to refer to the ethnic group? "French-Canadian Quebecer." They did so quite correctly. Also, the CBC story about the ambiguity of the word "Québécois" in English amply makes the point that the word is not suitable for use by us in an ethnic sense, and especially as the title of an article about French Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'll repeat myself, I did not put the ethnobox there. This is not the subject here. The subject here is whether this page should be moved. Kindly stay focussed on the topic please. I've pretty much addressed your initial reasons, and the subjects you're bringing up here have been discussed in the page deletion discussion. Again, naming policy in wikipedia is determined by common English usage (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name), not the CBC or government mandarins. You may not like it, but that's Wikipedia policy. --soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Québécois is not often used as a synonym for "francophone Quebecer" by social scientists in specialized writing. It may be used occasionally, but certainly much less than "francophone". Joeldl (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a study documenting that, put it in the article. That's not the point here, though. The topic here is if the article should be moved. This is not an argument for moving the page. --soulscanner (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a study documenting the contrary? I doubt it. When it comes to naming articles, when no "studies" are available, we do our best as editors to ascertain what language is used in scholarly discourse, and we follow that lead. Open any newspaper talking about poll results or any book with demographic data, and you'll see that they refer to francophones and anglophones, not "Québécois" and anglophones. I'll rely on the fact that this is common knowledge for Canadians.Joeldl (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that an argument has been raised that Québécois would be a suitable location for an article about francophone Quebecers, and I'm arguing against that. The majority opinion on this talk page has agreed with that. That leaves the question of what to do with an article about the word, when most links coming to this article are about people, and whether the editor intends Quebecer, Francophone Quebecer or French-Canadian Quebecer, we don't know. The best solution is to move the article about the term to Québécois (word) and have a disambiguation page here. Joeldl (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not the topic here. The topic here is a) what wiki conventions justify moving the page and what wiki conventions does the current naming violate. The scope of the article is another discussion. As for the articles mentioned, those are different subjects than the one discussed here. If you feel that these expressions are more appropriate to use other terms, that is fine; but Quebecois remains a legitimate word to refer to the Quebecois and their culture: it is commonly used and included in dictionaries. If you feel that the named articles need more work, please follow the wikipedia naming convention: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain ... debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. " [Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names] Why not improve the mentioned articles instead of spending all your time redebating this topic here? --soulscanner (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The word Québécois is ambiguous. (You've made that point repeatedly yourself as justification for there being an article covering the word.) That's why Québécois should be a disambiguation page, not an essay about the ambiguity of the word. (And especially not one loaded with POV, but that's beside the point, I suppose.) Links from other pages, such as in "so-and-so is a Québécois composer" have no reason to link to a page with content about the word. That information will not be deleted; it will still be covered in the encyclopedia, but at Québécois (word). This is parallel to American/American (word). The fact that the ambiguity is not geographical in the case of Québécois has no bearing; links still need to be directed appropriately. Joeldl (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Afd decision establishing the current consensus in the section below. The page was kept because it IS a controversial term. This reason is expressly cited as the reason why a referenced, neutral article is neccessary to explain the vatious contexts in which it is used to refer to "Quebeckers, and especially French speaking Quebeckers". This definition makes it different than Albertan, for example. I think the controversy here proves it. It is considered so important that it appears in the lead of the Quebec article itself, indicating it's primary importance. If this were not a politically loaded term and marginal, we would not be discussing it here or in Parliament. --soulscanner (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for Wiktionary. --Una Smith (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Canadian government recognized in Parliament that "Quebecois" represents a specific ethnic group. This is obviously separate from residents in the province, and francophones, and francophone residents of the province. (ie. the GG is a francophone Quebecker/Canadian but not Quebecois ; Jack Layton was an English Quebecker but not Quebecois ; Stephane Dion is a French Quebecker and Quebecois ; an Acadian is of French Canadian stock but not Quebecois ; You can be an English Quebecker and be Quebecois as well... ) In French the equivalent would be a pur laine... but not necessarily "pur et dur" 76.66.195.159 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Canadian government did no such thing: when it passed its motion, it deliberately left the meaning of "Québécois" ambiguous. This is well reported, and actually mentioned in the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and it said "nation" not "ethnic group." Actually, it was Parliament that passed the resolution - meaning that no one party's interpretation is authoritative. The Bloc Québécois, for instance, has said that it includes all Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Lawrence Cannon, the Tory minister, and Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc, said at the time [18]:

"Mais ce qui a le plus retenu l’attention, c’est la définition de «Québécois» que le gouvernement a finalement accepté d’offrir, une définition confuse et souvent contradictoire."

[...]

"Les anglophones du Québec sont-ils Québécois? «Ils peuvent l’être. Moi je le suis», a répondu M. Cannon. M. Cannon a accusé les bloquistes d’entretenir une définition «pure laine» des Québécois, mais le chef Gilles Duceppe a répliqué que pour lui, quiconque habite le territoire de la province est Québécois.

Vendredi dernier, un autre député conservateur interrogé sur l’utilisation française du mot «Québécois» dans la version anglaise de la motion, Peter Goldring, a indiqué qu’il s’agissait de faire référence «au peuple fondateur d’un pays, à Louis Riel, aux gens à travers le pays, aux Québécois».

M. Cannon a soutenu que le gouvernement avait inséré dans la version anglaise le mot «Québécois» pour reprendre la formulation exacte utilisée par le Bloc québécois dans sa motion originale. Cela est faux puisque le Bloc n’a fourni qu’une version française de sa motion, et celle-ci a été traduite en anglais par la Chambre des communes en utilisant le mot «Quebeckers».

Après le vote à la Chambre des communes, Stephen Harper a déclaré que «les Québécois savent qui ils sont»."

So the Bloc's motion initially read "Quebeckers" and the Tories replaced that with "Québécois" in English (and then accused the Bloc of ethnicism). The Bloc said the motion applied to all Quebeckers. The Tories were vague. Harper said only that "the Québécois know who they are." (Well, I don't know whether I'm "Québécois", because I'd have answered yes in French, and probably not (?) in English.) Cannon said not all Quebecers were "Québécois", but some anglophones were. And another Tory still said it applied to French Canadians "across the country." We'd also have to go back and see what Ignatieff said, but I suspect he'd have said it included all Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The political controversy surrounding the usage of the word in Parliament underscores the neccessity of having an article that considers all usages of the word, especially the politicized ones. It also underscores the neccessity of linking to an article called Quebecois, not one called French-speaking Quebecer or Quebec. When people read about political debates ike this, they want to know what is meant the Quebecois people. This article should explain that, and link directly from whatever article uses the word. if you feel that several contexts are not dealt with, please improve the article by adding referenced sentences that document these. --soulscanner (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The political controversy was almost entirely connected with a single resolution in Parliament. The English use of the word Québécois by Harper in that resolution was considered by most observers to be bizarre. Now sure, if the controversy needs to be written about, that can be done at Québécois nation resolution or Québécois (word).

But what people should really be linking to when they write "Québécois composer" is nothing to do with an explanation of that controversy. The editor is referring to the people. A reader doesn't want to find out about what ambiguity exists in what the editor wrote, he just wants to be directed to the appropriate sense. The link should probably be to Quebec (just as "Canadian composer" redirects to Canada) in most cases, and "Quebec composer" would be fine. If an ethnic or linguistic meaning is appropriate in the circumstances, then what they mean to link to is French Canadian Quebecer or Francophone Quebecer, respectively. Joeldl (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But readers linking to an article on the Quebecois nation, identity, or it's appearance on census studies would find exactly what they are looking for. This in fact argues for a broader article, encompassing a broader range of subjects. In any case, if you feel the linking here is inappropriate, you could easily redirect the link to an article that is more appropriate, or perhaps even better, use a qualifier that you feel is more precise; that's a matter to be handled page py page. But you cannot change the most common usage or basic wiki principles that state that it should be easy and natural to link to articles on a subject. This still remains the main article on Quebecois. Canada links to Canada, not Canada (disambiguation). --soulscanner (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of links are things like "the Québécois composer so-and-so." I believe that in these cases, a link to this article is not appropriate, and that is what I'm asking editors to give their views on. I believe that links to Quebec, and less often to French Canadian and Francophone Quebecer, are appropriate in most cases. Some links to other articles may occasionally be called for. The fact that under the proposed move Québécois will be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect to Quebec already represents a compromise with the view that links to things besides Quebec might be appropriate in some cases. Joeldl (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Then discuss it on a case by case by case basis at these pages. If you feel that there is a more precise term needed, discuss changes there. My guess is that the vast majority of people there wanted their links sent here. Changin the links on their pages without discussion there is grossly unfair. They are the editors, and you should be discussing it with them, not a group of editors who have nothing to do with these pages. --soulscanner (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's common sense that many editors type in [[Québécois]] and expect the link to be appropriately directed. Whether this article is an appropriate target for most of those links is one of the matters I'm asking editors here to judge. I feel it isn't. Joeldl (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please close the discussion It's pretty clear that the motivation for moving the page is to effectively delete this page from wikipedia (rejected here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois ) by removing all links to the page; when the only possible link is through a disambiguation page, this is effectively the same as removing it from wikipedia. The whole point of wikipedia is to allow readers to easily link to a topic If the article stays, then it's understood that editors and readers should be able to easily link to it.

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.[19]

• The word is inherently complex and ambiguous. That underscores the importance of linking to an article that fully describes the word's usage and meaning , not the necessity for hiding it. Quebecois identify their cultural,linguistic, national and ethnic identity using the word. All uses of the word in English refer to the Quebecois people, so you cannot discuss the use of the word without discussing the people. Unless there is a separate article on the Quebecois people (similar to Acadians, Metis, French Canadians), then there is no need to link to a disambiguation page. It is better to link directly to an article that is broader than these articles. The broad usage of the term calls for a broader scope of the article, not a narrow one.

• Since the scope of the article is to discuss all uses (which all pertain to some aspect of French Quebec culture and society),unless there is a separate article on the Quebecois people or Quebecois culture, then there is no need to link to other pages. There is no ambiguity possible in terms of mixing this page up with other articles. Unless there is a separate article on the Quebecois people or another such subject, then there is no need to link to other pages or redirecting to a disambiguation page.

• The wikipedia conventions opposing the movement of the page have been cited are no longer being discussed. Rather than discuss the merits of linking to a disambiguation page and wiki conventions, the proponents are now discussing the merits of linking Quebecois to other articles as if the article were again up for deletion, a notion already rejected (see again Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois). Discussion has also digressed into long personal opinions on Quebec policies and away from wikipedia policies. Instead, the discussion is deteriorating into the discussion of Quebec politics. The word is inherently complex and ambiguous, but it is the main way many Quebecers identify their culture, language, ethnicity, and nation. The fact is that all uses of the word refer to the Quebecois people in English, so you cannot discuss the use of the word without discussing the people. The word appears in the context presented in the article in dictionaries, newspaper articles, Canadian Parliament, and every facet of Canadian life, all in reference to aspects of the Quebecois people. --soulscanner (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that the real intention is to remove the word Québécois from use in Wikipedia. Whenever someone uses Québécois, they should be corrected: "You mean French-speaking Quebecer!", "You mean Culture of Quebec!", "You mean Quebec!". Well, I disagree. The word is in general use and when articles link here, they should get an article that discusses the meanings, the controversy, the context, links to Culture of Quebec, French-speaking Quebecer and the like should be introduced and included. All the reasons presented why this word is ambiguous and controversial are not reasons for it to be trimmed and moved to a secondary meaning but, rather, why this is important and the primary meaning. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Two points I will assume good faith here and make a few points which I hope Soulscanner and his seconders will pay attention to.

• The first point here is about the strong emphasis on ethnicity, on ethnic nationalism, and on tying the word Québécois to it, which is the sole message that comes out of reading this article, despite the occasional contradictory use of the word Québécois inserted in a couple places. My sincere opinion is that this emphasis is not only out of place, strongly POV, and politically motivated, it is disconnected from the reality that comes out of an honest scientific observation of the historical, social and political facts concerning contemporary Quebec society. In the words of two paid authors of The Canadian Encyclopedia, the territorial nature of contemporary Quebec nationalism is most evident:

"But the end of the ideological preponderance of Marxism, marked by the critique of totalitarianisms, during the post-referendum years (after May 1980), gave all its vigour to the democratic ideas inspiring a new kind of return to the Quebec question, question this time defining the Quebec nation (nation québécoise) in terms of political entity able to unite divers sociocultural communities, and whose sovereignty is presented a possible answer to the challenge of pluralism in Quebec society." — Lucille Beaudry. Nationalisme canadien-français

"These radical changes to what was then called French Canadian nationalism were quickly interpreted by representatives of French-speaking communities outside Québec as abandonment of French Canada and of francophones residing outside the Québécois national territory (see FRENCH CANADIAN NATIONALISM). These changes, approved by the delegates to the national conferences, gave rise to debates during discussions on the resolution of French Canadians' right to self-determination. Recognizing Québec, among other things, as the national territory of French Canada, the resolution led some representatives outside Québec to show their scorn during interventions and voting. Franco-Ontarians rejected the resolution while French-speaking people in the West were equally divided in their votes among acceptance, rejection, and abstention. However, the majority of Acadians (52%) and Québec delegates (98%) supported the resolution." — Marcel Martel. Estates General of French Canada

Obviously, this academic and scientific discourse cannot be inserted side-by-side with its opposite ill-informed discourse founded on a denial of what these authors report as historical and social facts. So my first point is that if really we had to continue with the current content, there would be no alternative but to rewrite it completely based on sources that do not make abstraction of what is certainly the most significant and most written about change in the way people generally think of themselves in Quebec. No doubt most sources I would have to quote would be in French, but should it be a surprise when we kow it is the language of most academics in Quebec? But for reasons I will state in my second point, I do not propose this path, because I find it makes more sense to cover all this inside Quebec nationalism.

• My second point is that most of what is inside the article is out of place. We just have to compare it to its French equivalent at fr:Québécois to realize that what we have here is really a particular POV, emanating from a particular cultural/political stance expressing itself only in English, on what Québécois means or ought to mean, even though in the language spoken by most people who label themselves as such, it means simply "of Quebec" or "from Quebec". The French-language Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page, giving links to Quebec French, Quebec and the Wiktionary. Looking at the history of the article, we can observe that the only significant action it has ever known was a change from being a simple redirection to Quebec to being a disambiguation page. There simply is no controversy there, yet there are, among the people who can write French well-enough to contribute to the French-language Wikipedia, numerous Quebecers who are not native French speakers or of French-Canadian heritage and still speaking French. How is such a thing possible if we claim to want to respect the NPOV rule of Wikipedia? -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• To Soulscanner: after checking, I found out that the last AfD discussion was held in April 2007, over 20 months ago. As per WP:CON: Consensus can change, and 20 months is indeed quite long enough for a consensus to change (I remember you challenging a consensus at the Quebec page less than a month after it was formed. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could drop the accusations of forum-shopping in regards to the survey being conducted; it is only reasonable to ask whether a consensus may have changed after 20 months. --Ramdrake (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please see new section below. Do you accept that the AfD estabished the current conensus? If not, what changed it? --soulscanner (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• No. Deleting this article and renaming this article are unrelated issues. --Una Smith (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Are you denying that the AfD represents consensus with your no? I didn't ask if they were related issues. I asked if editors accepted the consensus established at the AfD. Are you anwering no to this? --soulscanner (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• The outcome of the AfD is not relevant here, so discussing it here is wasting our time. Please stop. --Una Smith (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD establishes a very imporant consensus, which is always relevant:

"... how things are is that "Québécois" is a politically loaded term which does deserve a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article about how and why it's so politically loaded"

It clearly says an article (this one) is needed to explain this. Do you accept this? It's important to accept this, otherwise it will be difficult to continue. My main point is that a fully referenced article as described here can better achieve this than a disambiguation page, which are there to point to various articles on similar subjects. --soulscanner (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• This section illustrates perfectly why there should be a disambiguation page at this article title. --Una Smith (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Disambiguation pages are there to link to related articles. There is only one article called Quebecois, and no new ones are being proposed. Explaining how a complex term with various meanings (all relating to people in Quebec) can be politically loaded is best done in a reference article on the subject (this one), and no other articles are being proposed. This scope of the article is clearly established in the AfD. An unreferenced disambiguation page cannot explain why this word is ambiguous and contraversial, and certainly cannot provide acceptable references. It is clear that this is an attempt to delete the page by eliminating all links to it. --soulscanner (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is plenty here to disambiguate, beyond Québécois (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• What other articles can this one be confused with? --soulscanner (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are no pages called Québécois (Quebecer), Québécois (francophone Quebecer), Québécois (French Canadian Quebecer), Québécois (inhabitant of Quebec City) and Québécois (variety of the French language) is neither here nor there. Joeldl (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the crux of the issue. The lack of such articles effectively makes links to a disabiguation page unneccessary. A disambiguation page is there to orient people to different articles with similar names, not to prevent people from linking to the main page of a contraversial subject as is proposed here.

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic ... Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles are used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation. In this case it is achieved using Mercury as a disambiguation page. [20]

So, according to Wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages, the criterion needed to redirect to such a page is the possibility of having several articles. That is not the case here, as you have just pointed out. There is only one main page called Quebecois, whose scope is to describe the copmlex and overlapping sense of the word. Can you find where this policy justifies your move proposal? --soulscanner (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner is quite right here. There is no other article named Québécois and thus no title collision to rectify. If you believe editors are linking here incorrectly go and poo-poo them directly and see what their response is. Perhaps they were wrong and are glad of your edification; perhaps it is what they intended to link to entirely. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And what are Quebecer, French Canadian, French-speaking Quebecers, Quebec City, Quebecois French if not articles which might interest the person searching for Quebecois? -- Mathieugp (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp is quite right. Soulscanner's argument boils down to this: "If synonyms can be found for all the meanings of a word, then the primary topic becomes the use of the word itself." This is baloney of course; the fact that Springfield can be disambiguated as Springfield, Illinois, Springfield, Massachusetts, etc., doesn't mean that the primary topic is Springfield (toponym).

Soulscanner will object that the word Québécois doesn't actually appear in Quebec, French-speaking Quebecer, etc. That's a technicality that doesn't change the fact that when a person types in "Québécois" or an editor links to [[Québécois]], the most appropriate link may be to an article that doesn't have the word "Québécois" in it. For example, Canadian redirects to Canada, even though "Canada" doesn't contain the word "Canadian", and other article titles, such as Canadian Airlines (also known as "Canadian") do. The question is: "What does a reader, or an editor, expect to be directed to?", not "Are there any other titles with this exact word in them?"

Soulscanner will of course say, as he has elsewhere, that the word Québécois itself can be talked about in a way that goes beyond WP:NOTADICTIONARY, and is notable enough to deserve encyclopedic coverage. Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, the word "Québécois" possibly being significant enough to merit an article does not in any way make it the primary topic for Québécois.

In judging this, I believe we need to take into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of links are things like "so-and-so is a Québécois such-and-such." Here is how I would summarize the main responses we've had:

• Soulscanner has argued that in these cases links to the article Québécois about the word are appropriate. I believe common sense dictates otherwise, and will leave this to the appreciation of participating editors.
• DoubleBlue, on the other hand, has argued that in order to resolve this problem, the status quo needs to be changed so that Québécois is no longer just about the word. In other words, it should be made an article about all of, a few of, or one of, the several possible things Québécois can mean (in addition to being about the word itself). For many reasons, I oppose this. In my opinion - without meaning to be rude - we need not go deeply into the pros and cons here because, based on the history of discussion on this talk page, this idea does not have a significant chance of ever achieving consensus. In any event, this is an entirely separate discussion from this move proposal, which is premised on the status quo, namely that the article Québécois is about the word. Raising a different proposal, especially one that is so unlikely to gain consensus, will only confuse matters. Joeldl (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp: The point is that disambiguation is only necessary when two articles have the same title. If one anticipates that readers may want more information on those topics, then links, hatnotes, or a See also section are standard. In fact, there's a very appropriate hatnote and links on the article right now. DoubleBlue (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Joeldl: I get that you don't feel the use of the word is appropriate, however, it is used and even enshrined in a motion by Parliament recognising the Québécois as a nation within Canada. We need not judge the correctness of any of that but report all sides in a neutral fashion and let the reader make his own judgements. DoubleBlue (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DoubleBlue, that can be covered at Québécois nation resolution, Québécois (word), or Quebec nationalism. A reader who types in Québécois may or may not be interested in the word itself, as opposed to one of the things the word denotes. Joeldl (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A reader who types in Frankincense may be only interested in the word itself, or the tree, or its history, or its use as a perfume, or its use in religion, or its use in medicine. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Coatrack banner

Also, the organization of this article seems rather confused to me: it touches on many different subjects -etymology, politics, history, culture, presumably because each in turn might be associated with the word "Quebecois". IMHO, this is more of a {{coatrack}} than anything else. Tagging as such.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that constitutes a coatrack article. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." This is a more general article that puts several sub- and related articles in context. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:COATRACK says this (emphasis mine): "An article with a title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study, is not a coatrack if it only covers one definition." Therefore, it would seem that an article with a title that can have several meanings, becomes a coatrack if it tries to cover all the possible meanings of the word, which I believe this article really tries to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely if it is an article about the word itself that it can talk about all the different meanings. But in that case, it shouldn't become the main location for discussion of the individual meanings. I agree that this article strays too far from that, and I agree with the "coatrack" banner. Joeldl (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. The coatrack idea is that an purports to discuss one topic but, in reality, discusses something else or, at least, is has severe undue weight. There are plenty of general topic articles that touch on many dimensions of the topic. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake: Do you wish to move the article, or do you wish to split it up into various articles? You cannot do both.

In general, all definiations discussed here pertain in some way to people living in Quebec, especially francophones. That is the definition cited in four dictionary definitions, and everything here is within the scope of these definitions. --soulscanner (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a good deal of the current content of the article concerns self-identification as Québécois. Since that self-identification would normally be in French, your English dictionary definitions about the word connoting specific reference to francophones are irrelevant to that content. You've argued in the article unconvincingly, and in a way that Ramdrake and I have both found to be unsupported by your sources, that Québécois as a French word can refer specifically to francophone Quebecers. Most French dictionaries consulted - and all of those that are published in Canada - mention only the meaning "native or inhabitant of Quebec," and give Québécois francophone in the linguistic meaning. Joeldl (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Many references in the article show that the Quebecois identify as such in English too, explaining why it is common usage in English; in English, it's generally redundant to say Francophone Quebecois and somewhat awkward to say anglophone Quebecois as evidenced by the 5 definitions (see definitions at this link) at the beginning of the article, which indicate that the word usually refers to francophones; this is not to say it isn't done; it's just unusual. And remember, wikipolicy indicates that common English usage is preferred (see "Use English", with the American Heritage, OED, and Merriam Websters dictionaries being the authoratitive guides to any conflicts over precision. There is no reason to move or delete the article on account of how the word is used in French. It is not the main topic of the article. --soulscanner (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but much of this article is about purported ethnic use of the word in French, and about self-identification , which takes place in French when the people self-identifying are francophones. What words they use in English are irrelevant, given that fine shades of meaning tend to be lost when you're speaking a second language. You're also confusing English and French above. In French it is quite commonplace to refer to Québécois anglophones and Québécois francophones. In English, we most commonly say francophone Quebecers and anglophone Quebecers. Also, the Merriam-Webster dictionary merely gives "French-speaking Quebecer" as a common second meaning, not the only one. The Merriam-Webster could have used especially but chose specifically for the second meaning:

• Québécois : a native or inhabitant of Quebec; specif : a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec.

Here's what they say in the introduction about these two words:

• The sense divider esp (for especially) is used to introduce the most common meaning subsumed in the more general preceding definition.
• The sense divider specif (for specifically) is used to introduce a common but highly restricted meaning subsumed in the more general preceding definition.

So the Merriam-Webster declined to use esp for "the most common meaning" and instead chose specif for "a common but highly restricted meaning." Joeldl (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Both apply, as the American Heritage version uses especially; they are not contradictory. This indicates the the second definition (i.e francophone Quebecers) is a) more common and b) more specific than the general definition. It can be both. If you prefer to change specifically to especially, that's okay but I think it's safer to stick with a direct quote to stick as close as possible to the reference, lest people start accusing each other of misrepresenting sources. --soulscanner (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the ethnicity aspect of the article, it is only a small part. There are also sections on etymology, identity, and nationhood. The article needs to be expanded, no doubt. Ethnicity is controversial; only 37% (a significant minority) of Quebeckers identify their ethnicity as such, so it is bound to be. But that's a reason to include it in the article, not to delete it. --soulscanner (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That is false. Less than 2% of Quebecers identified their ethnic origin as Québécois in the 2006 Census. [21], far fewer than the third of Canadians who identified their ethnic origin as "Canadian." Joeldl (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. You know full well that the Ethnic Diversity Survey, a more detailed and careful study, found that 37% of people in Quebc 15 years as older identified their ethnicity as Quebecois. It says so in the article, and you have acknowledged it above. --soulscanner (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed here previously, Ramdrake and I, the only two editors who have had the patience to look through these sources, have found that you give a selective and biased account of what they say. You deleted from the article the full question asked by interviewers, which expressly encouraged respondents to consider their own "ethnic and cultural identity" as possibly distinct from that of their ancestors. Also, the conclusion from these data that Québécois is an ethnic term is misleading, since the same argument would mean "Canadian" was also an ethnic term.

This has been discussed over and over. You know what's wrong with your arguments. I feel it necessary to include this response for the benefit of other editors.

The article cherry-picks whatever facts it can, sometimes mischaracterizing them, to make it appear that francophone Quebecers are excessively focused on ethnicity. Joeldl (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

a) I have no idea which questions you are talking about. I added a lot of material at your specific request, in good faith. If I deleted relevant information in the process, please post it with an easily verifiable reference including a quote as I have done upon your request.

b) Your opinion on the article is your personal POV. The soueces cited in the article are more authoritative than your personal critique. If you can find a referenced source that contradicts the conclusions of this survey, please provide it. You have no right to delete or disallow direct results from an official census study just because you do not like the results. You have asked for specific quotes to back up everything added, and I provided them in good faith, including them in the text. The only thing wrong with them is that the results disagree with your personal POV.

c) The Ethnic Diversity Survey, in Quebec, used "Canadien", not "Canadian". Canadien is an ethnic term, refering to Canadian. It was correctly included as such in the study. Even if that's the case, wikipedia is not the place to dispute official census studies. They are authoratiative, and represent the most complete.

d) The fact that this Quebecois is studied as an ethnonym in census studies and found to be a common one proves that it is a common use in demographic studies, and that many Quebecers claim Quebecois as their ethnic identity. If you can find other surveys on the subject, please provide them. There are no conclusions anywhere in the studey that the number of Quebecers who identify their ethnicity as Quebecois are less than 37%. --soulscanner (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Merriam-Webster used specif instead of esp, meaning they declined to call it the "most common" meaning, when this was one of the categorizations available in their system. Could you quote the part of the AHD where they explain what's meant by esp. when used to qualify senses? That will help us ascertain whether their dictionary makes the kind of distinction between specif and esp that Merriam-Webster makes. Joeldl (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The two designations are not contradictory. "Restricted" does not mean it is less common; it just means that it applies to a smaller group, which is certainly true; indeed, it specifically defines this "restricted" sense as still indicating common usage. As for the American Heritage Dictionary, I'll look that up. I'm happy with the wording, whatever it means, as it flows nicely, is encyclopedic, and is a direct quote from an authoratitive book. If you wish to change it to "specifically", I have no problem with that. It would be pretty lame to get into an edit war over that. --soulscanner (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Current Consensus to keep page

The current consensus to keep this page has been established in a clear Articles for Deletion section. Consensus can change, but there's nothing to indicate that it has. The article has remained stable for that period. The 20 month period of relative stability in fact adds to the consensus. A poll answered by 4 people does not change things; that's even stated in the introduction to the sentence.

• "The term has its own history, independent of Quebec."
• "... the reason this has a separate article, where other Canadian provincial demonyms don't, is that the term has a complex, loaded and highly controversial political and cultural context that words such as Ontarian and Albertan don't have. It means different things to different speakers, and that inconsistency gives rise to conflict. Whether that's as it should be is not for Wikipedia to dictate. Our role is to reflect how things are, not how we think they should be — and how things are is that "Québécois" is a politically loaded term which does deserve a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article about how and why it's so politically loaded." [22]

In other words, redirecting Quebecois to Quebec have been explicitly rejected, as has the deletion of the page. If people cannot accept this, then we need an RfC, as these arguments do not add anything new. --soulscanner (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The AfD, in which I did not participate, had 7 people in favour of deletion/redirect and 7 against. Also: this is about a page move, not a deletion; and consensus can change. The "stability" of the article is mostly because nobody has had the persistence necessary engage in edit warring with you. I tried to improve the article months ago, but you deleted my contributions, which were sourced and in accordance with majority opinion on the talk page. Your content is not in accord with opinion here and you make selective and incorrect interpretations of your sources. Joeldl (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to say that the poll carried more weight than the closing arguments of the AfD. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please review wiki policy on consensus:

• Consensus is not a majority vote.[23]
• Wikipedia has several processes to deal with such things as deletions ... requested moves ... These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. Each of these processes is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented.[24]

The strongest arguments are given above. They represent current consensus and are important to recognize, much more so than polls. There has been no explanation as to what has changed to make these arguements invalid, and no explanation as to how any of the reasons given for the move are different than the ones given to delete the page. Refusal to accept this consensus will make it difficult to have a reasonable conversation as to why this consensus should change. --soulscanner (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

An examination of the closely decided AfD, which I believe would have been better characterized as "no consensus, defaulting to keep," shows that those who opposed deletion felt that the word itself was an appropriate topic for an article. That does not contradict in any way a proposal for a move to Québécois (word), and indeed one editor who voted against deletion has voted for the move. Joeldl (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So you do not accept the AfD decision as consensus? --soulscanner (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an examination of the debate shows opinion closely divided. But even if that were accepted as a consensus decision: 1) consensus changes; 2) this is a decision on a different topic; 3) a move to Québécois (word) is compatible with the opinions expressed by many of the people who voted for retention in that debate. Joeldl (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll results do not represent consensus, especially if the opinions expressed personal POV and are not based on wikipolicy. Do you recognize that poll results do not represent consensus? --soulscanner (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Soulscanner: since the last AfD, there have been at least 609 edits to the article (yes --counted them). That is significant change and should warrant anyone wishing so to challenge the previous consensus. Also, what is being proposed here is not a deletion. It consists of:

1. Moving this article to Quebecois (word) based on the preexistence of such a solution.
2. Turning this page into a dab page, to help sort out the ambiguity around the term. Let's face it: most people landing at the Quebecois page are there to look up one of the several possible meanings of the word, not to read up on the entire controversy surrounding usage of the term.

So far, several editors have expressed their opinion this time, offering complete reasoning and arguments; not merely !voting. It is indeed the strength of arguments which should dictate such decisions. And so far also, you have dismissed out of hand the arguments of others, and repeated your own arguments ad nauseam, insisting that your arguments are stronger. Well, repeating your arguments doesn't make them any stronger. However, if you are deadset in your opposition to the move, we can always take this dispute to RfC or to Mediation. What I would prefer though would be for you to be a little more objective and see that there may be an emerging consensus to indeed move the page. If you wish to wait until more editors have chimed in, that's fine with me. A full RfC on the subject may indeed be desirable in such a case. One thing is for sure: I cannot accept as you seem to be insisting that a consensus (which is better described as "no consensus - keep") that's 20 months old should be used to quell the current emerging consensus for a move. Nobody here is suggesting deletion, to start with: this page would merely be moved, and a dab page put in its place, which I find an eminently logical solution.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the proposition of Joeldl is simple: based on its current contents, the article named Quebecois should be named Quebecois (word), while Quebecois should be made a true disambiguation page (obviously with a link to Quebecois (word) in it). This reasoning, it we are going to be honest and respect the terms of its premisses, cannot warrant a counter-argument such as "but this will result in deleting the article, which is wrong or against policy" because the article will not be deleted as a result of the renaming: rather, it will be moved with its full contents intact to a properly named one. As for the contents, Soulscanner has made it abundantly clear that he/she believes the ambiguity which results from different usage of the word to be special enough to warrant a full article on the said various usages. I personally do not agree, but I won't oppose the Quebecois (word) article. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

English usage section

Souloscanner, I'm bringing this up here because you deleted my question from your talk page, telling me to bring it here.

I don't understand why you've added a fact tag to the statement that phrases such as "Quebec literature", etc., exist. Since you have no problem with the same expressions with "Québécois". The "list fact" tags for the list items dispute only the contention that they intend specific reference to francophones, which must be sourced. Joeldl (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because they have a different meaning from Quebecois literature; they are not interchangeable. You need to remove this statement, or provide a reference indicating that they are entirely equivalent. The dictionary definitions all say that "Quebec" can refer to any literature from Quebec, whereas Quebecois refers specifically/especially to that of francophones (see dictionary entry for quebecois"). You'll need to find a reference that contradicts these.

Personally, I think you should give up these endlessly picky semantic games. They are a waste of time. The words mean slightly different things. We both know it. --soulscanner (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement you're challenging doesn't say that the meaning cannot be different; it merely says the expressions exist. "Similar" here was intended to mean similar in form, not necessarily meaning. I refrained from mentioning that their meaning could be different in order to avoid original research, since you had previously added tags to that kind of statement in the section.

The dictionary says that in English there are two possible meanings to Québécois, one broader and one narrower. Who's to say that reference to francophones is always, or usually, implied in the expression "Québécois cinema," as the article appears to do? That needs to be sourced. Joeldl (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is one definition given in each entry, not two: "ADJECTIVE: Of or relating to Quebec and especially to its French-speaking inhabitants or their culture." ... That's different than just from "Of or relating to Quebec", or there would be no need for qualifiers ... one carries with it an implicit reference to French culture (i.e. Cinema, Literature, etc.), the other less so. It's different in French, of course, but we're talking about English usage here. The difference is subtle, but it's reflected in the definitions. it's up to you to find definitions that contradict the definition. --soulscanner (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, especially doesn't mean it's always implied; it means it often or usually is. Merriam-Webster is explicit about this by using a "sense divider." And the fact that in the abstract, the word Québécois might often or usually imply reference to francophones doesn't mean that that's the case in the examples you gave. It may well be, but that needs to be sourced. Joeldl (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were two meanings, there would be two definitions. The fact is, there is only one, and the ambiguity is built into it. I suppose the proof itself is that reasonable people can't agree on it. --soulscanner (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two meanings. That's why the Merriam-Webster separates them with a "sense divider." One is a narrower meaning subsumed within a broader one. Joeldl (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The other dictionaries do not. Moreover, the fact that there is only one entry in all entries indicated that the difference is not clear or definitive. --soulscanner (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The other dictionaries you're talking about are perhaps less formal about the way they separate senses. "A native or inhabitant of Quebec, especially a French-speaking one" still sounds to me like two senses - a broader one, and a narrower one.

Joeldl here is only stating something obvious and undeniable: that there are two definitions (separated by a semicolon) with the second one being a narrower (less general) meaning than the first. That is quite conventional in English dictionaries and the same is true for French-language ones, and possibly many other languages. It is obvious also that this specific, narrower sense is the result of the existence of the word Quebecer in the same language, a contrast impossible to make in French. We have gone over this already. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not true at all. Different definitions are given in different sentences. What soulscanner is describing is a definition with a usage declaration; a sense in how it is generally used. It is a native or inhabitant of Quebec, especially a French-speaking one. DoubleBlue (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's wrong. The Merriam-Webster writes this:

• Québécois ...n... : a native or inhabitant of Quebec; specif : a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec
• "Sometimes a particular semantic relationship between senses is suggested by the use of one of four italic sense dividers: esp, specif, also, or broadly. [...] "The sense divider specif (for specifically) is used to introduce a common but highly restricted meaning subsumed in the more general preceding definition."

Clearly, they're saying that specif indicates a semantic relationship between senses. They also say, "A boldface colon is used in this dictionary to introduce a definition." So two colons = two definitions. Joeldl (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"common but highly restricted meaning subsumed in the more general preceding definition" is correct. One definition. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Section on Quebec nation resolution

I mostly agree with Ramdrake's removal of this section. It needs to be rewritten to focus solely on aspects of the controversy related to the use of the word "Québécois." Also, points of view on the meaning of the word will need to be included from all sides, not just from the Conservatives. Actually, not even just from politicians.Joeldl (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The section is on the usage of Quebecois nation; one example is the Quebecois nation motion. It does relate to the use of Quebecois with respect to the Quebecois nation. If you feel it needs to expanded, then do so; I agree that it does need a wider variety of notable commentary. I find it odd to support deletion if you feel more should be included. Blanking referenced passages is ill advised. Lets discuss the needed additions here. --soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of the content of the section is too tangentially related to the topic. This topic should be discussed only in aspects concerning the use of the word "Québécois." Joeldl (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It touches upon the history and politics of the province. If this article is about the uses of the word "Quebecois", then this section needs to be rewritten, balanced and summarized first.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the passage discusses usage of "Quebecois nation" by notable figures in Canadian politics. That makes it within the scope of the article. It should not be deleted after over a year of stability without discussion fitst. Specifically, what changes would you like to see?

It's difficult to discuss categorical statements of opinion without examining specific problematic passages. There has been no indication of which passages are unreferenced, innaccurate, unnotable, or unrelated the various usages of "Quebecois nation". The subject clearly deals with usage in relevant political context. There may be POV issues here, but there's no justification for removing the section and a dozen references that discuss usage of the word in a very important and notable context. --soulscanner (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the subject of this section is the Parliamentary motion recognizing the Quebecois nation. It discusses some historical background, the notion of Quebec nationalism, and some of the events surrounding the motion. But this isn't really related to the use of the word "Quebecois". As such, it is synthesis, and off-topic, among other issues.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the section is the Quebecois nation and what it means. It is a noteworthy expression in several important political debates, and needs to be objectively described. It means different things to different people and these meanings need to be carefully documented. One simply cannot deny that this is an important expression whose historical and current usage needs to be explained. The Quebecois nation motion is an important and significant event in which the various meaning of this expression came into play, but it is seperate but related issue. Because of it's political importance, it is natural to mention it here as part of the section.

In any case, you deleted the whole section which had been in the article for over a year without discussion. Please leave it there until we finish discussing the issue. Perhaps it would be more productive to refer to specific passages that you find problematic or too long. We can work to balance and condense the section, and focus on how various notable figures comment on how the "Quebecois nation" is defined and used. --soulscanner (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've remvoed the most grievously off-topic part of the section, so that it focuses on the use of the word "quebecois" and not on Quebec nationalism.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and before you try reverting again please look up WP:ONUS too: The onus is on the editor(s) seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion.

And again:

Common errors include:

• Objection to the removal of "cited content".
• Assertions that consensus is needed before contentious content may be removed.
• Assertions that contentious material may not be removed without prior discussion.

Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is there for inclusion of the deleted content. It has been there for 9 months, without undue discussion, indicating a consensus to keep it (Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus; Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_hypothetical). It remains up to you to show that this consensus has changed. The policies you cite are for the inclusion of new content, not the restoration of long standing material deleted by one or two editors. Otherwise, editors could delete whole pages during discussions. use a little common sense.

Also, please respond to my previous points. How do you think the use of "Quebecois nation" developed? Are there specific points that you feel are inaccurate? I'm opening to condense the section and adding balance, but lets take this one sentence at a time. --soulscanner (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of direct, referenced quotes

Please do not delete the following references again. They contain the following quotes:

"For example, in Quebec, Québécois was the most common ethnic identity and was reported by 37% of Quebec’s population aged 15 years and older, either as their only identity or alongside other identities(p.11, paragraph 3)

"For example, 37% of Quebec's population aged 15 years and older reported Québécois, either as their only ethnic identity or alongside other identities."(search 37%)

Deleting references violates wikipedia policies. --soulscanner (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner the deletion happened because the quotes were so similar in the first place, and in one reference, it didn't use the "most common" qualifier on which you hinge your argumentation. However, at second pass I did find the second quote and self-corrected. Had the quote not existed, this would just have been correcting a misquote. Please stop wikilawyering endlessly over moot points.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is at odds with what you said in edit summaries. You said you removed and altered the quotes because they were not in the referenced text and were misquotes (see 14:48, 26 December 2008, 14:35, 22 December 2008). The altered quotations removed precisely the key words in a survey that showed that 37% of Quebeckers use Quebecois as an ethnonym, a fact that you challenged as innaccurate. The quotes you replaced them with do not exist. You have already acknowledged this error 14:55, 26 December 2008, which I did not see when I posted this request. I'll accept this acknowledgment of error, but I find it it curious that your eyesight has improved only after the altered quotes were restored by other editors several times. --soulscanner (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Quebecois identity and Quebecois nation

These are two related but different entities. Having a Quebecois identity means that you self-identify as Quebecois and refer to yourself as such. Some Quebecers identify as Quebecois, and others don't because they view the word in different ways.

The Quebecois nation is a trickier concept. Some (like Stephen Harper and Lawrence Cannon) do make being part of the Quebecois nation a question of personal identity. In their view, Quebecers that do not identify as Quebecois are not part of the Quebecois nation. Others (like Gilles Duceppe or Jean Charest) equate the Quebecois nation with Quebec itself. Hence, every Queebcer (everyone living or born in Quebec) is a Quebecois, whether they self-identify as such or not.

We all have our own usage and opinions on which definitions should be used, but all views should be presented. Merging the two section would give more weight to Stephen Harper's version. We need to be fair and represent all views. I think if anything we need to focus on adding more views from people like Gilles Duceppe under the "Quebecois nation" section. --soulscanner (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Quebecois nation" a notable topic?

Several editors have been deleting referenced, stable passages from the "Quebecois nation" section with little if no discussion of the subject. This RfC is to determine whether "Quebecois nation" indeed represents a notable use of the word Quebecois. --soulscanner (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 1

• Yes The idea of a Quebecois nation is controversial and the subject of much political debate in Canada. It's various usages and the complete political context in which it is used needs to be described so that readers can understand it's significance and ambiguity. --soulscanner (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your contention that this has been done without discussion is not true. The section "Quebec nation resolution" above contains Ramdrake's and my reasons for the deletion. Also, the section had contained an "Off topic" banner for some time. Joeldl (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletion have been done without commentary, and without further discussion. Banners and removal of referenced materials are not a substitute for discussion. There has been no discussion on this for months, and the article has remained stable during this time. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus for policy on this. --soulscanner (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to #Section on Quebec nation resolution, begun on December 26. Joeldl (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the following deletions, which deleted the section in it's entirety without discussion.

• 14:52, 26 December 2008
• 14:28, 25 December 2008

Moreover, your recent deletion came without further dialog as requested. --soulscanner (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you'd opened an RfC until you reverted the last deletion. At this point deletion is simply implementing the majority opinion on the talk page; I assume you feel 2-1 is not sufficient. If nobody else were likely to participate, I would disagree. But since you've now opened an RfC, there's a chance that other people will weigh in, so we can wait. Joeldl (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so I don't accept a 2-1 vote. --soulscanner (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you kindly self-revert so people can see what we're talking about? I think people should be able to judge for themselves if the historical and political context relates to the "Quebecois nation". --soulscanner (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but to be covered mostly elsewhere and probably not under that name This article, Québécois (word), is about the use of the word Québécois. Only those aspects of the issue that are related to the use of the word "Québécois" should be covered in depth here. As far as I can tell, the linguistic aspect is notable almost entirely in relation to what you called the Québécois nation motion, in which the use by Harper of the word Québécois in English ("...that the Québécois form a nation...") instead of Quebecers was controversial. Coverage of that topic here should focus mainly on this linguistic issue. Currently, only a small portion of the section is about this; mostly, it discusses broader issues (going as far as mentioning that provincial parks are called "parcs nationaux") rather than summarizing them succinctly and quickly moving on to the use of the word.

As for the idea of the nation itself, I note that Google Scholar returns 314 hits for "Quebec nation" and 54 for "Quebecois nation". "La nation québécoise" would generally most accurately be translated from French as "Quebec nation", not "Québécois nation," with the possible exception of references to the House resolution. In any event, the concept of a Quebec nation can be covered in the article Quebec nationalism. Joeldl (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To say that usage of Quebcois nation should not be covered here is a very weak argument. The article discusses how the word Quebecois got associated with "nation". This is wholy relevant. To Quebec sovereignists, the Quebecois nation and Quebec are equivalent. To most other Canadians, they are not. It is neccessary to understand this in order to understand the political sense of this word. You are essentially proposing that a strong Quebec nationalist bias govern this article. This is unnacceptable. The fact that this term is controversial means that the political controversies and the motivations of the different sides needs to be discusses in its entirety, and not be strictly governed by the definitions of the Bloc Quebecois. All significant political POV's need to be given equal weight. --soulscanner (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[You substantially altered the text above after I replied below. Sorry but this is not acceptable.]

I'm not sure what you mean. This article should discuss the use of the word Québécois in Harper's motion, the only case in which it seems to me the linguistic issue has received significant attention. It should not meander into a general discussion of Quebec nationalism. As for actual material on the topic of a Quebec nation, not particularly related to this linguistic issue, there is no reason that should be covered here (beyond a summary) rather than elsewhere. Where it is covered, I don't see why Wikipedia should adopt the relatively infrequent term Québécois nation.

For example, the National Assembly passed something it called a "Unanimous resolution on the Québec nation". Even a Google search of the website of the federal parliament, where the resolution recognizing the "Québécois" as a nation passed, returns these results:

• site:parl.gc.ca "Quebec nation" 769 hits.
• site:parl.gc.ca "Québécois nation" 159 hits. Joeldl (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying this should be the main site for Quebec nationalism. Readers may not understand why the word "Quebecois" would be associated with the word "nation" in the first place unless they understand the political context. You can't understand that context unless you understand the importance that sovereignists and nationalists ascribe to the word "nation". It would leave an incomplete picture of the political context for this term if this wasn't described. The idea of a Quebecois nation did not magically appear in 2006. Outlining the political and historical context here does not preclude covering it in more depth elsewhere. --soulscanner (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't discuss things with you if you go back and change your text after I've already responded to it. Joeldl (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it really make that much of a difference? Do you want me to change it back and post the revised message here? --soulscanner (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should correct the record. Joeldl (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This refers specifically to the expression "Quebecois nation", specifically under that name. If you say it shouldn't be discussed under that name, then you are saying that it is not notable.

This is about usage of the word in English, not the translation of the French. To say that usage of Quebecois nation should not be covered here is a very weak argument. The article discusses how the word Quebecois got associated with "nation", and its political context. This is wholly relevant to the usage described here, if only to describe the evolution for the term. This does not make this the main article on Quebec nationalism. It does not preclude more complete discussion of these topics on other pages, where I agree the subject should be described in more depth; the article here only includes material that explain usage of the expression. To Quebec sovereignists, the Quebecois nation and Quebec are equivalent, so it is inevitable that some discussion of the evolution of the "Quebec nation" is necessary to explain this. To most other English-speaking Canadians, they are not, so this needs to be fairly described as well. It is necessary to understand all this in order to understand the political sense of this word.

You are essentially proposing that Quebec nationalist definition govern this article. This is unacceptable. The fact that this term is controversial means that the political controversies and the motivations of the different sides needs to be discusses in its entirety, and not be strictly governed by the definitions of the Bloc Quebecois. All significant political POV's need to be given equal weight, and the evolution of the usage documented. --soulscanner (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Quebec nation is non-existant. It's Quebecois nation (the people, not the place). The status of the Francophone people of Quebec hasn't changed in the slightest (IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that nobody really seems to say "Québécois nation" that much, as the Google Scholar hits show. Other than in the context of Harper's motion, nobody has ever drawn the slightest distinction between "Québécois nation" and "Quebec nation" as far as I can tell. Other than the House resolution (a political statement, not a reliable source), what are you basing your claim on? And to Soulscanner, I can't really find anybody other than the Tories making such a point of saying "Québécois". It's true this word seems to be dear to Harper. I suppose everybody else is a Quebec nationalist, including Michael Ignatieff who said "It is evident that Quebec is a nation." [25] Joeldl (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't feel it's appropriate for Wikipedia to take a position on a matter such as whether there is a "Québécois nation" or a "Quebec nation". However in referring to the concept, Wikipedia should follow the more common usage, except when referring to statements that specifically refer to a "Québécois nation". Joeldl (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree on one thing. However, the various political perspectives of those using the word need to be described or the politicized nature of the expression (be it Quebec or Quebecois nation) will not be clear to readers. Preferring one use over the other favors one political side over the other, when neither predominates. People should know that if they use the word "Quebec" or "Quebecois" nation that they are using a politically loaded term, and why that term is politically loaded. --soulscanner (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but to be covered mostly elsewhere and probably not under that name, as per Joeldl's straight forward, logical and coherent set of arguments. -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Section 2 ===--soulscanner (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As a staunch Federalist, I'll have to excuse myself from this RfC. Quebec nation is no more real to me then Ontario nation, Prince Edward Island nation etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. This isn't about our personal opinions. I'm also a federalist, but I'm open to the idea of there being a Quebec nation. If you don't believe there's an "Ontario nation", you probably don't believe there's an "Ontarian nation" either. If there were, we'd probably say "Ontarian". But Quebec is different, because there's no good adjective for it. So we use "Quebec." For example, we say "Ontarian writer", but "Quebec writer." Even apart from the political issue, the comparison with "Ontario nation" is not appropriate for this straightforward linguistic reason.Joeldl (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting pending the closure of this RfC.

There is not reason for GoodDay to withdraw from the debate, as he offers a legitimate POV on the matter that is representative of the majority of Canadians outside Quebec. So does Joeldl. The real question here is how far we should we go in describing the complex politics of identity, of Quebec autonomy, and French-English relation behind this expression.

Usage of the word is all about personal opinions. People like GoodDay (over half of Canadians) do not believe that a Quebec nation exists, hence do not use the word unless they are negating its existance. This is worth mentioning in the article. The Bloc and Parti Quebecois, and the Quebec liberals use this idea of the "Quebec nation" as equivalent to the "Province of Quebec" to promote the legitimacy of Quebec independence (the Quebec liberals are federalists, but they use the threat of Quebec independence as a bargaining chip in talks with the federal government to decentralize). Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, and Michael Ignatieff use the word "Quebecois nation" to affirm a Quebecois identity and recognize the identity of French Quebecers, yet to prevent giving the idea of Quebec sovereignty legitimacy. The Bloc seeks to make political hay of this by stating that denial of the "Quebec nation" is the denial of Quebecois identity, when it is in fact a denial of the legitimacy of Quebec independence. Hence, adopting Quebec nation as normal usage in English without mention of the historicaland heavily politicized undercurrents here would heavily prejudice the article in favor of the a Quebec nationalist POV that Joeldl admittedly shares; it is by no means a normal expression in common use; it is a heavily politicized expression anyway you say it. With a term that is as politically loaded and ambiguous as this one, you cannot adopt the meaning of one or another as legitmate for all of wikipedia just becasue you do not like the other one.

For the record, I'm personally ambivalent of the expression and don't use it at all in normal conversation. The obvious partisan politics behind the usage of both Quebec and Quebecois nation (it is used almost exclusively in a political context and often interchangeably) makes me cynical when I hear either side. But all sides here need to be described. Saying that there is a "normal" usage here just hides the fact that it is mostly a politicized term either way. That's precisely why a complete section describing the political context of this usage is needed. That is the whole point of this article.

So to move forward, I'll ask Joeldl this: Could you list the political perspectives on the word's usage that are relevant here? --soulscanner (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that debates about the meaning of the English word Québécois are notable solely in relation to the 2006 parliamentary resolution. I don't believe we'll find many "perspectives" expressed that are not connected with that resolution. What I am saying is that an overall discussion of the resolution is not necessary here. Discussion about this at Québécois (word) should focus on commentary on the wording of the resolution. Joeldl (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a Quebec nationalist. I don't know where you got that. Joeldl (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the Quebecois nation is not at issue here. The question here is if the politics and history behind the term are important enough to describe to understand the controversy about the word's usage, or whether these references should be deleted from the page. --soulscanner (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the content of the "Québécois nation" section cannot truly be described as history "behind the term". Joeldl (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Soulscanner is correct that a use of the word in English is political and needs to be explained clearly here. Nationalists seek to equate the people with the geography to strengthen their claim of a nation and independence. Federalists seek to recognise a diversity of people within the province and the reach of francophones outside of Quebec to weaken that claim. The deliberate use of the word Québécois in English rather than Quebec or Quebecker is intended to imply the francophone people of Quebec. My suspicion is the true purpose of moving this article to (word) was beyond reducing its usage to dismantling the article to a dicdef. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there should not be a catch-all article about everything with any relation to the word Québécois had been established by previous discussion here. For a long time, the article said that it was about the term itself. The move was a recognition of that fact. If that has the effect of reminding people of the appropriate scope of the article, so much the better. In order to avoid the obvious criticism that what you're suggesting is incompatible with the title, Québécois (word), you criticize the motives of the page move rather than acknowledging it as having happened.

Also, your contention that "federalists" say one thing about the English word Québécois and "nationalists" say another is not entirely accurate. I think that among federalists, only the Tories have tried to draw this distinction. The second thing is that this "debate" has occurred solely within the context of the passage of a single resolution of parliament. Third, I don't think that people who favour the Bloc's interpretation are saying that Québécois can never mean "francophone Quebecer" in English. Mostly, they're saying that the French version of the resolution clearly refers to all Quebecers, and therefore the English version must be interpreted in a compatible way. And "Quebecer" is one possible meaning of Québécois in English.

This issue is entirely connected with that single resolution, which already has its own article at Québécois nation motion, as named by Soulscanner. You have not explained why in the article Québécois (word) there should be a general history of nationalism in Quebec. Joeldl (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• That was not established at all. There is no restriction here on the many overlapping meanings and contexts inwhich any word is used. It doesn't make sense to cherrypick meanings to promote one use over another. All that was established (tentatively, as consensus can change) is that the ethnobox not be used, and that is a very tentative consensus. You cannot limit discussion of uses of the word. Indeed, in order to fully describe the complex usage you need to be able to fully describe the political context in which "Qubecois" and especially "Qubecois nation" is used. This does not preclude more detailed descriptions on other pages. --soulscanner (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignatieff and Dion also drew the distinction, stressing that it is in a "cpsiological" sense that it's used. They wished to recognize the Quebcois people's right to self indentify, but not nation status for the province. --soulscanner (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Use of the term "Québécois". DoubleBlue (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• You cannot understand this use without the full political context, sepcifically, why the Bloc and provincial parties made a political issue of the so-called "Quebec nation" in the first place. The fact is, that the Bloc does not distinguish between "Quebec nation" and "Quebecois nation" in order to advance the legitimacy of Quebec independence internationally; if it is rejected, they use as political fodder to show that the English Canadians do not respect their right to self identify . This needs to be explained clearly to understand the debate. You cannot understand the full meaning of "Quebecois nation" and why it is controversial unless you understand why the Bloc and Parti Quebecois continually make "the Quebec nation" a political issue to begin with. --soulscanner (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article

From about May 2007 until recently, this article's hatnote said "This article is about the use of the term." The page has now been moved by consensus to Québécois (word). However, Soulscanner claims in this edit that "This article is about natives and inhabitants of Quebec, especially French-speakers," and that "This definition fits with consensus." Soulscanner, could you please say where consensus was established that this article is about the people? (Never mind the obvious problem that "inhabitants of Quebec, especially French-speakers" isn't even a possible topic for an encyclopedia article - would the article be about all inhabitants of Quebec or only about French-speakers?) Joeldl (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the definition of the term, as outlined in 5 references at the beginning of the article. The term refers directly to the people, and nothing else.What do you say the definition is? --soulscanner (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you understand that this article is about the word itself, not about the thing or things the word denotes. Please point to where there is consensus that the article is about some group of people rather than about the word. Joeldl (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you decouple a word from the thing it denotes, if it only denotes one thing. It defies logic. The word only refers to the people. --soulscanner (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't denote only one thing. To answer your question, "divorced" is too strong a word. The article should cover those aspects of Canadian history and politics that are necessary to discuss the word Québécois, and this will involve consideration of the people of Quebec, and of the French-speaking people of Quebec, to some extent. However, that does not make them the focus of the article.

For an example, have a look at American (word). According to your ideas, it should be an article "about the natives and inhabitants of the United States, or those of the Americas". But these topics are appropriately covered at United States and Americas, and not at American (word), except to the extent necessary to cover the word. For example, the culinary habits of the people of the United States (or the naming of national parks), though perhaps relevant to an article on the people, would not be discussed in an article on the word.

What I am saying is not a new idea, and you should not pretend it is. It represents the consensus of editors here. See Talk:Québécois (word)/Archive 2#Request for comments on scope of article II, Question 4, in which three of four editors said that Québécois was not the appropriate place for an article about a cultural group. The fact that the article has been moved to Québécois (word) is reflective of that consensus and confirms it. Joeldl (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your paralell to America is not valid. The ambiguity here is because American can refer to the Americas (North and South America) or to the U.S. It is a geographical question. With Quebecois, the geography is clear; the term always refers to the people of Quebec; there is no ambiguity here. What is unclear is to which Quebecers the term applies, whether it is a question of self-identification, residence, language or ethnicity; it is important mostly because large segments of the population, mostly anglophone, do not identify as Quebecois. The same holds for the Quebec or Quebecois nation. Also, unlike American, Quebecois only refers to aspects of the people, and rarely if ever to aspects of the geography.

As for the old RfC, these arguements were explicitly rejected in a much larger and more recent RfC sampling 14 editors and archived here. It pretty much rejected that this term can be treated like Ontarian or Albertan, as advanced in the older RfC. This is not new to you. --soulscanner (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not argue forever here. You are continuing a debate on which a consensus already exists. The AfD debate does not represent a consensus for what you say, and it is not' more recent - that's simply not true. Joeldl (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully with Joeldl that the move was for an article specifically on the term itself. That is the move I supported with my vote. The article named Quebecois is finally a disambiguation page, in conformity with so many other precedents (Scot, Scottish, or American), and the article specifically on the term "Quebecois" itself is at Québécois (word) much like for American (word). -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the American (word) article as a template for structure, we could have a section on the use of the word in English and French, another on the history of the word in both French and English, then a list of examples of the meanings and connotations the word has acquired. I would probably stop believing Québécois (word) is a useless piece of junk if it ever evolved to be comparable in quality and neutrality to American (word). -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglicisation

I'm not completely positive on this, but does the Anglicised version of Québécois(e) have a feminine form? I've never seen it written as such in English media, and English doesn't have genders for words. I'll remove it for the time being from the article, but if I'm incorrect, feel free to revert me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Quebecoise is valid -- please consult the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, for example. As such, I've reverted this. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have immediate access to a CanOD. I still find it puzzling how a word used in the English context - which doesn't have genders for its nouns - would have masculine and feminine versions of a word. Is "Quebecois" the only word in English that has a feminine equivalent? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In re-reading this, I now realise what a relative dolt I was! To answer my own question: of course English has masculine and feminine versions of nouns - steward and stewardess, bachelor and bachelorette, for examples. Mea culpa. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

English usage is major topic

English usage is the major topic here on English wikipedia. It should go in the lead sentence. While French usage is related and important, it should serve the purpose of explaining English usage.

If someone believes that French usage should go first, please justify this. --soulscanner (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In your introduction, you glaze over the simple fact that Québécois(e) is a French-derived word. It is clear what the English usage of the word is in the prior long-standing introduction, and is dealt with equitably. Anyhow, since you alone (in correction of edit summary) have reverted to a version which is non-consensual over one that has been stable for months, I believe it is contingent on you to compel for change. You have been boldly reverted (BRD), so discuss changes on the talk page first. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)