Talk:Quebec/Archive 2

Ethnic origins

The statistics supplied in this section about ethnic origins cannot be included in this page as it is. There's a lot of background information missing concerning the information supplied. And no, a link to the study published by Statistics Canada is not enough. Interpretation of the data is hard and to my humble opinion almost impossible. They have counted the answer 'French Canadian' as both french and canadian. So the question is this, how can one now be able to distinguish people who's origins are from France (Europe) and the people who answered 'french canadian' ? Either put the non-aggregated results or remove these results altogether, because right now, it's impossible to use and really misleading. Anyone got another idea on how to correct this ?

There is also one more thing to note. The answer 'french canadian' doesn't mean both french and canadian for many many people here. It actually means 'from quebec'. If Statistics Canada conducted this survey without considering this, I say it's not worth putting it on the Quebec's page since it's baloney.

What does this section mean? "gay miner who have small dicks..." I am at a loss as to how this is encyclopedic... Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This was vandalism.

Quebec allowing Africans in the Province

Wow, Quebec is not so strict on immigration. Quebec is allowing immigrants from the former French colonies and anyone who can speak French without college/university degrees, to settle in its province. Now there are many French-speaking North Africans, Sub-Saharan Africans and Haitians living in Quebec. Sonic99 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Unless I'm mistaken, Canada has an immigration policy, not the provinces. Once you are in Canada, you can live anywhere you damn well please. Lexicon (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebec has its own immigration policy which is different from the policy of rest of Canada. The Quebec's French government wants to preserve the French language, but they're not considering the demographic change that is occurring in their province.Sonic99 21:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That was interesting, what is your source Sonic? Aaker 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quebec receives more immigrants than a great deal of countries. See the statistics on slide 12 here.

The immigration policy that Quebec has (as a province inside Canada) allows it to pre-select immigrants to Canada who plan on residing in Quebec. The Quebec government recruits world wide, but targets countries where there are francophones and "francotropes". The result of this policy is that Quebec attracts a great number of people from Africa.

The immigration department prepares a yearly plan of immigration. They can be read online here. The target for 2007 is 48 000 received immigrants.

The main law framing immigration to Quebec is An Act respecting Immigration to Québec -- Mathieugp 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Aaker 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"English-speaking Québécois"

Somebody insists on changing "English-speaking Quebecers" to "English-speaking Québécois". Here is what the Gage Canadian Dictionary says about the words:

• Quebecker or Quebecer n. a native or long-term resident of the province of Quebec.
• Québécois n., pl. Québécois. French. a Quebecker, especially a Francophone.

This concords entirely with my sense of how the words are used in English. While Québécois, used in French just means "Quebecker", the use of this word in English definitely carries the additional connotation of a Francophone. I am reverting the change. Joeldl 09:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. -- WGee 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebecer for the english and Québécois for the french. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Quebecer for everybody. Québécois usually means "francophone Quebecer" in English, but is rather imprecise. I don't use the word at all. Joeldl 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it imprecise? Why would the two Quebec sovereigntist parties Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois use it in their names then? Québécois refers to Canadian French (esp. in Quebec) better than any other term. Quebecer is too english to be used to refer to the french (les Québécois). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Those parties' names are in French. The Parti québécois is a political party, even if they use the word parti in their name. When Gilles Duceppe speaks English, he always says "Quebecers", and is referring to all Quebecers. When there is a need to distinguish francophone Quebecers, you can call them francophone Quebecers, or even francophones if the reference to Quebec is implicit. Other than in Harper's "Québécois nation" motion, I doubt you'll find the word "Québécois" used in a government document in English, because of its non-neutral tone. (By the way, the Bloc's motion called for recognizing "Quebeckers" as a nation, and it was the Tories who changed it to "Québécois".) I don't like the term Québécois because what people use it for (when the reference to Quebec is implicit) is just "francophone". I don't like emphasizing that they identify as Quebecers rather than Canadians by using "Québécois", because their political point of view is irrelevant. Joeldl 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

+1 for Joeldl

Quoting Royalguard11: "Québécois refers to Canadian French (esp. in Quebec)"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask an Acadien if French Canadian and Quebecois are the same thing. [deleted by MD as inappropriate - my apologies] Or a Franco-Ontarien (-Manitoban, -Saskatchewanian, -Albertan...) Quebecois refers solely to Quebec. French Canadian refers to all persons in Canada with French as a first language, regardless of origin. Quebecois are a subset of French Canadian. Please don't confuse the two. Michael Daly 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And there's no shortage of Quebecers who think just the opposite. However, I don't think this is the right forum to air your frustrations at intolerant Quebecers, as there are intolerant people in all human populations. Painting all Quebecers as bigoted helps no one, and is quite uncivil.--Ramdrake 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Territory vs region

What's the difference between a territory and a region? --AW 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, a region is usually geographic in nature, with a few exceptions (there's the west, Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes, and the north). A territory is a politically drawn up region in Canada that has the same form of government as provinces, but doesn't require a constitutional amendment to add, and isn't represented by the Queen in the form of a Lt. Governor (it has a commissioner instead). The federal government also has more power there (and a whole department dedicated to it- Department of Indian and Northern Affairs). It's like a regular province, but all the territories are less populated (because they're all north of 60, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about territories and regions in Quebec - such as in the template at the bottom of this article, {{Template:Subdivisions of Quebec}}. It includes regions like Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Côte-Nord and Montréal (region) while territories include places like Jamésie Territory, Quebec and Kativik Regional Government. However, the Jamesie article says it's part of the Nord-du-Québec administrative region. It's confusing --AW 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 17 regions in Quebec. See Regions of Quebec for a list. The word "territory" doesn't have an official meaning by itself, but may appear sporadically in other expressions, such as "unorganized territory" (an area not administered by any municipality). Joeldl 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be referring to Template:Subdivisions of Quebec. Here, "territory" means a group of municipalities, Indian or Inuit lands, and unorganized territories which do not fall under the jurisdiction of a regional county municipality. Joeldl 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then someone with knowledge of this should clarify the template and the article Regions of Quebec. Maybe create one for Territories of Quebec as well. --AW 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found official references to these as "territories", but it's obvious on a map that they correspond to "hors-MRC" municipalities bunched together. The template has other factual errors; for example, the list of agglomerations is incomplete. I can't fix it right now, but if you want to give it a shot, there's Administrative subdivisions of Quebec which in conjunction with [1], I think, has all the necessary information, except for "territories". Joeldl 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebec Act

I would clarify the situation as follows : Currently "The act, designed to placate one North American colony, had the opposite effect among its neighbors to the south. The Quebec Act was among the Intolerable Acts that infuriated American colonists, who launched the American Revolution. A 1775 invasion by the American Continental Army met with early success, but was later repelled at Quebec City. However, the American Revolutionary War was ultimately successful in winning the independence of the Thirteen Colonies. With the Treaty of Paris (1783), Quebec would cede its territory south of the Great Lakes to the new United States of America."

Should be "The act, designed to placate one North American colony, had the opposite effect among its neighbors to the south. Because the Quebec Act extended the southern boundary of Quebec to the Ohio River, the act was considered by American colonists as among the 'Intolerable Acts', which helped precipitate the American Revolution. A 1775 invasion by the American Continental Army met with early success, but was later repelled at Quebec City. However, the American Revolutionary War was ultimately successful in winning the independence of the Thirteen Colonies. With the Treaty of Paris (1783), the British empire ceded its territory south of the Great Lakes to the new United States of America."

Typo

In the Subdivisions box at the bottom of the article, "Longueuil" is incorrectly written as "Longueil". I would have fixed this minor error but article is protected.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cataclaw (talk • contribs)

I've fixed it on the template. Interesting that someone created a redirect for it at the incorrect name, but it matches the article now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Marketing Speak

"While the province's substantial natural resources have long been the mainstay of its economy, Quebec has renewed itself to function effectively in the knowledge economy: information and communication technologies, aerospace, biotechnology, and health industries."

Someone fix this. - MSTCrow 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Province of St. Matthew?

Why does the "Boundaries" section say that "This was followed by the addition of the District of Ungava through the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 that added the northernmost lands of the aboriginal Inuit to create the modern Province of St. Matthew."??? I've never heard this term. Can anyone clarify, or was this a case of very subtle vandalism? If no-one knows, I'll change it in a few days.

Richardmtl 14:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Change done. Richardmtl 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation

I thought the abbreviation was always PQ? --AW 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Qc abbreviation was introduced at least 20-30 years ago, as far as I can recall.--Ramdrake 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PQ is still in use but officially its QC 24.226.230.236 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'Qc' is the form used on Canadian census returns, as far back as 1901. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.82.56 (talk) 15:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The abbreviation "PQ" is use for the "Parti Québecois" and "Qc" is us for "Québec". Or maybe you still use the very old name "Province of Québec". This name isn't use now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.68.31.6 (talk) 18:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this gap is very important in the history and Québec and Canada. In 1907, the 300e anniversary of Québec City is celebrated. But, in 1914, in the beginning of the First World War, the Van Doos are created while French Canadian fight against Regulation 17 in Ontario. Later, after the Vimy battle in 1917, there was the conscription crisis in Québec City in 1918. These events separated French and English in Canada until the 1960s and the coming of Trudeau in Ottawa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.178.163 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the abbreviation used to be P.Q. (Province of Quebec) but was changed to QC when it was deemed that allprovincial abbreviations were to be changed to two-letter abbreviations.--Ramdrake 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec is a nation

I have added at the beginning of this article that Quebec is a nation. I have put as a reference Of course, nation doesn't mean state. Pgsylv 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is user Pgsylv suggesting that the government of Quebec's web site is not authoritative when it calls Quebec a province? ""Unique" is a great word to describe Québec. The province is in a class of its own, with its immense territory and distinctive personality, thanks to its majority French-speaking, multicultural population. Welcome to Québec, the largest Canadian province and the only one where French is the population’s first language!" - http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/portrait?lang=en&id=pgs.portrait&location=pgs%2Fportrait VisitorTalk 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• That will be hardest to prove since the definition in english isn't the same, still good chance with it :p 66.158.134.50 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is highly POV since, as mentioned above, the definition is not the same in English. Putitng it in the intro is also subjective. I don't feel it has its place there and have deleted it. Furthermore, the nation is already mentionned here [[[2]. Tomj 20:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not as POV as one might think, as this is the very word ("nation") that the Canadian PM Stephen Harper used when proposing his bill to recognize Quebec as a nation, back in November last year, so it could actually be sourced. However, putting it in the intro is debatable under the undue weight policy.--Ramdrake 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As Ramdake said, S. Harper used the word "nation". Charles Blattsberg who is from Toronto is teaching that Quebec is a nation just as Israel or Catalonia. In Political Science, the term nation refers to a common language, common territory and the self-recognition. In other words, if Quebeckers recognize themselves as Quebeckers, speak French and have a link with the territory, we call Quebec a nation. (Ask a person from Ontario or B.C., they will tell you they are Canadians). I will wait for you to answer my comments but I will put it back later today. U.K. recognizes Scottland as a Nation, that is what S. Harper did. Those are the facts. If you are not conviced, look for Gerald Bouchard's or Charles Blattsberg's writings for a more scientific point of view. T Y 207.96.176.72 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to your comment regarding the recognition of the nation. However, stating it in the intro without any context is inappropriate. Tomj 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate because the first thing Quebec is, is a nation, after that a province. In this Article, it says that it was Nouvelle-France, then Canada, but the reality is that Canada now means everything outside Quebec. Politicaly speaking, Quebec is a nation and a Province. Most of the Academics agree on that (I have given two references on that). I could add Charles Taylor but is point of view is rather philosophical than political. I still want to write at the first place that Quebec is a nation. The french version accepted it. Every dictionary I have consulted were putting Quebec as a nation. T Y 207.96.176.72 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Je suis Québécois and I guess you are, and I understand your point. However, it is mentionned in the article

“ On October 30, 2003, the National Assembly voted unanimously to affirm "that the Quebecers form a nation". On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons passed a motion moved by prime minister Stephen Harper declaring that "this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." As only a motion of the House, it is not legally binding. ”

Still, stating "nation" as the main qualifier is misleading. Quebec is a province, recongnized as a nation. Would write in the intro of Andre Boisclair : "Andre Boisclair is a gay politician" ? Certainly not. Even if true, it would be inappropriate. Tomj 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

andre boisclair was the chief of the parti québécois and then was a politician and then was ... and finaly was gay. quebec is a nation, then a province. i m getting tired to convince people when it s been 10 years academics have made concensus around that question. it s quite an insult to what quebeckers really are, a nation. don t worry, with 2/3 of the assemblee nationale being not federalist, and a clown named jean charest at the head of liberal party, we will slowly but surely get this recognition. when 70/100 of the people of quebec are identifying as quebecker before canadian, and that some canadians are still arguing that we are just a province, i think that the misunderstanding will never end. anyways, just write down its a province, even though most of academics recognize it as a nation ... hail to the queen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.176.72 (talk • contribs)

Get out of your dreams (and sign your comments or better,create an account) Tomj 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added that Quebec was a nation at the beginning. Canada's article starts like this " Canada is a country ". The nation of the Ontarians is the canadian one. The one of the Quebeckers is the quebec one. Nation is more important than province. Quebec is not just a province like Manitoba is, it's a Nation. That's why we have to put it first. 207.96.176.72 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems very much like an opinion (or original research). Is there a reliable source showing that Quebec is it's own nation? --clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes: Gérard Bouchard, La nation québécoise au futur et au passé, (VLB éditeur, 1999)

Possibly even more important is that Scotland mentions it being a nation right at the beginning of the intro too. I guess it ascertains the relevance and notability of such a fact. Under these circumstances, I would support the same statement being made in the intro to this article.--Ramdrake 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

Finaly, we decided to add "nation" at the beginning of the article, just as it is in the french version. I wrote down the best reference and i expect you do the same if you remove it Pgsylv 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The province of Quebec is not a nation. The Quebec people are a nation. Those two are very different things, indeed. Lexicon (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No. "Quebec" is a nation and "The Province of Quebec" is a province. I will ask the Admin to put a 3R header if you change it again. I have put the best reference and we all know Quebec is a nation and a province... until it becomes a nation and a country. Pgsylv 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, what would make Scotland be a nation and Quebec not be one? It's in the intro to the article on Scotland...--Ramdrake 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, I haven't made a single revert, Pgsylv. Secondly, this article is about the province of Quebec. Third, your argument that "Quebec is a nation" and not "the people of Quebec are a nation" doesn't add anything, since the term "Quebec" as you're using it in fact is the same thing as "the people of Quebec" -- "the Quebec Nation" is synonymous with the Quebec people in the same way that "the Mohawk Nation" is synonymous with the Mohawk people. There is no piece of land which is the Mohawk Nation, just as there is no piece of land which is the Quebec Nation. Sure, the province of Quebec is intricately tied to the Quebec people as a nation, but it is not in any way synonymous. Quebec, the province, which is what this article is about, is not a nation. The Quebec people, or the use of "Quebec" poetically to refer to them, may be considered a nation. And that's that, really. As for you, Ramdrake, I would argue against using the term "nation" in Scotland since, of course, the word "nation" has many different definitions, and it is highly confusing there. Instead, I would have put the term Home Nation which has a more defined meaning, and Scotland is indeed a Home Nation in the UK.

Nation, or Home Nation, I fail to see a major difference. If one can call Scotland a nation (because it has this status), then since Quebec also has the status of nation, it should be possible to call it a nation too. And pardon me if I'm blunt, but your distinction that "the nation of Quebec means its people, not its territory" seems specious to me, (or at least an unsupported POV so far). Do you have a source to support such a POV distinction?--Ramdrake 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You fail to see the difference? One is a term that has a generally understood meaning referring to a specific type of political entity in the United Kingdom, and the other is a very vague term with several different meanings. I disagree that Scotland should be called "a nation" since that term alone breeds confusion. Not only that, but the article on England doesn't call it a nation, it calls it a "constituent country", (which is another term like Home Nation)—and if Scotland is a nation, then England is just as much one. Your one example is certainly not enough to argue as "precedent" either. Now, there are generally two different meanings for "nation" - one is "sovereign country" (a nation-state), the other is "people" (it really isn't specious, check out the definition for yourself). France is a nation in that it is a sovereign country, and the French people (poetically France) are also a nation, as they are a people. Quebec is not a sovereign country, so it is not the first kind of nation. The Quebec people are a nation, however, but then it may be argued that other people in Canada are a nation in the same way—Acadians, Newfoundlanders and Metis, for instance, not to mention the Inuit and many many First Nations. The problem here is that the quotes I see above even refer to "Quebecers" and "Quebecois" as constituting a nation, not the landmass of Quebec as being a nation. Quebec doesn't qualify as a political nation, since it is a province of Canada, so the only idea of nationhood is that Quebecers are a nationality—a distinct people, which I hardly think anyone who understands ethnicity really would object to. However, that does not make it acceptable to claim that "Quebec is a nation" in an article on the province of Quebec, as is being done. No matter what Scotland might say. Lexicon (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, The United Kingdom is composed of 4 nations: England, Wales, Scottland and Ireland, their flag represents this fact with a cross and an "x" in the middle. You get confused over State, Nation and Country, three different concepts. A Nation-State (in french:État-nation) is what most of the countries are. A few of them are composed with more than one nation, like the United-Kingdom. I refer to nation as a political concept, not a "poetical" one, as you say. In Polical Science we refer to a Nation as 1- people recognizing themselves as part of this nation (like 70% of Quebeckers) 2- people living on a specific territory (Quebec Territory) 3- People speaking the same language (French). I have already given my references. I'm still waiting for yours. Pgsylv 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The quotes I've seen above refer to "Quebecers", not Quebec. And there's certainly nothing that is scholarly and enough to prove that this article should call Quebec a nation. As for my "confusion", no, I'm discussing the different meanings of the same word. And finally, as stated, this is an article about the province. Lexicon (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot talk about the Province of Quebec in here because there is an other article form the Province of Quebec. This article is about Quebec the nation and the province. The definition we will consider for nation is the political one, like they do in Political Science or even in Philosophy. And yes, there are enough proofs and academic works for us to talk about a Quebec Nation. 207.96.176.72 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, this article is about the province of Quebec; a province of Canada, just like Ontario is an article about the province of Ontario; a province of Canada, and Alberta is an article on the province of Alberta; a province of Canada, and so on and so forth. Notice any similarities? Perhaps you should consider creating a new article called "The Nation of Quebec" as opposed to pushing your political view here. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can add "Quebec is a province in Canada and is also nationally recognized as a non-sovereign nation within the Canadian Confederation." There is a difference between the term nation and country.Pieuvre 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ontario , Alberta, BC, are provinces. They all speak English. They all love the Queen of England and still want her to be the chief of the State. Quebec is a nation and its territory is the Quebec province, wich is all different from all other provinces and territories in Canada. Nobody has given me a reference saying that Quebec is NOT a nation or JUST a province. If you want to split the article, go ahead, but the one on the province will be very thin and meaningless. 207.96.176.72 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ontario , Alberta, BC, are provinces... and so is Quebec. As far as bringing meaning to the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not collect essays and radical ideas to bring meaning to readers' lives. And I don't see how listing Quebec as a nation in the first paragraph adds any more meaning to the article for that matter. Anyhow, encyclopedias list facts, period... and the fact of the matter is that the land mass we call Quebec, as defined by its political divisions, which is what this article is about, is not recognized as a nation; it is recognized as a province within the country the world knows as Canada. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we submit the question to a RfC?--Ramdrake 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, but Ramdrake, I'm sure you can at least agree that the introductory sentence in its current form is clearly false. That is, Quebec can not be nationally recognized as a nation within the Canadian Confederation as the Canadian Confederation was the process by which Canada became a country and is not an official piece of paper whereby one can open a book and refer to. I will not change it today lest I break the 3R rule, but I will change it tomorrow if the sentence remains as is. — Dorvaq (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends. I interpret the term Confederation as neither being the process, nor the piece of paper (I assume you mean the Constitution), but merely the assemblage that is Canada, or in this case, Canadian Confederation==Canada, basically. In this case, I would submit that it still hold true.--Ramdrake 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not picky with the word "confederation". I just don't know how to describe the union of provinces and territories that now form Canada. Of course it is a province and everyone knows that, but it is also recognized as a nation by the House of Commons and the National Assembly and I think it's worth mentioning it somewhere in the article. Catalonia will be always a nation within Spain, but it's officially called an "automious community". Why can Quebec have two terms?Pieuvre 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To state that the Canadian Confederation nationally recognizes Quebec as a nation is, to the very least, misleading, regardless of what *you* interpret "a confederation" to constitute. Neither the Canadian Confederation as "the process" nor the Canadian Confederation as "the assemblage" (or Canada) *nationally* recognizes Quebec as a nation.

Likewise, to couple the source being used with the statement that Quebec is *nationally recognized in Canada* as a nation is also misleading, as the source in question writes nothing on how Canada recognizes Quebec as a nation. One source written by a seperatist author who refers to the Quebec province as a nation is not enough to show that Quebec is *nationally* recogized as a nation — "nationally" here referring to the entire country of Canada and not just Quebec in isolation. — Dorvaq (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But what I meant by "nationally recognized" is that the Parliament recognizes it such. If it doesn't pass, then I would suggest you to redefine it. I'm not very picky. Grammar and accuracy is not my best skills here. All I know that it would be clearer to include "non-sovereign". It may still confuse some people, but they'll understand Quebec is not an independent nation(-state). That is if you're going to mention "nation" somewhere in that article. And I already told you I used "Canadian Confederation" due to the lack of other definition to call the union of provinces that form Canada. I did tell you can change that whatever you want. It's not my interpation.Pieuvre 02:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, if your interpretation of "nationally recognized" means that Parliament recognizes Quebec as such, then the source being used has to illustrate this. The source currently being used does not — it doesn't show how Canada as a collective of 32 million people or Canada as represented by Parliament nationally recognizes Quebec as a nation. — Dorvaq (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you requested. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/nation-vote.html I still suggest to reword "nationally recognized as a nation within Canada" to "nationally recognized as a non-sovereign nation within Canada" if anyone would like to be be more clear that Quebec is not an independent nation-state. If you want me to change it and include the source, just tell me. I don't want to touch anything yet. Pieuvre 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That says Québécois, not Quebec. Quebecers are a nation. Quebec is not. The exact wording of the motion was "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." That, without ambiguity, means that the Quebec people are a nation. That is, they are a nation like the Inuit are. Like the Mohawk are. Like the Ojibwe are. There is no question here. Parliament did not say that Quebec was a nation. Period. Lexicon (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Lexicon. All mentions of Quebec as a nation has been deliberately avoided in the wording of the motion. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake, and how do you call the people living in the territory of Quebec? It doesn't matter what the rest of Canada says about Quebec technically since it is up to the Quebecois to decide what to call Quebec and themselves as. Or however, you can reword it to include the fact that the National Assembly and Parliament recognize the Quebecois people forms as a nation (which is already present in the article anyway). Even most federalists of Quebec agrees that it is a nation, even the PLQ members, so it's not a separatist ideology. It isn't a big argument in Quebec. I just still do not see a reason why this cannot be mentioned since it is a real fact that Quebec is a nation according to the defintions of nation (note: I did not say nation-state or country). There is still no reason to delete this nation fact since it still holds true. I would like you to show me some sources that Quebec is not a nation. I already removed "nationally", and added "considers itself as a non-sovereign nation within Canada" and preserved the reference. Good enough or no? Perhaps I should consider creating a paragraph somewhere in the article to clarify that sentence. Pieuvre 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, once again I have changed the version. I'm the only one bringning scientific references to support my scientific arguments. Is it possible to discuss this issue with scientific method? You could have used other historians/philosophers like Linteau, Pelletier or Charles Taylor to support your arguments. Quebec is a nation and that is what Academics have found with their researchs. Please put references to your sayings before removing what I have written. By the way, the fact that Stephen Harper recognizes it or not doesn't matter. The nation is not souvereign (that means is not recognized as it in the Federation). Finaly, I juste want to mention that Canada is a Federation, not a Confederation like it says in the real name of Canada (Confederation of Canada). In political science, a Confederation is something like Europe. Pgsylv 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can still live with your change. I was trying to be more clear to fit in the arguments. Though I'd keep the "non-souvereign" part in. By the way, I did not remove your reference...just a rewording of the context. Anyway. Pieuvre 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. It's just that it didn't correspond to what you were saying. Geread Bouchard said Quebec was a nation... that's it ... Pgsylv 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pgsylv, that is not the way Wikipedia works and there is absolutely nothing scientific with your source. You can not come here and claim to speak on behalf of 8 million residents of Quebec. To claim that the majority of Quebec identifies itself as a nation or that the common academic view is that Quebec is a nation, are both exceptional claims, and as such they need exceptional sources. One source coming from a seperatist author who talks about "La nation québécoise" and not "La nation de Québec" is far from meeting this criterion. You are the one making this exceptional claim, which makes the burden of proof yours, and not the other way around. This means that it is not up to Lexicon or I to disprove your claim, but up to you to prove it, which is how Wikipedia works. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You were provided with two sources that says Quebec is a nation: one, a political author from Quebec who says so, and second the prime minister himself recognizing Quebec/its people as a "nation within a united Canada", a non-sovereign one, and mostly for cultural and linguistic reasons (which is one of the acknowledged bases to define a nation). That you say the people and not Quebec itself was recognized is specious, since the people identify with the territory (I'll refer you again to the article on "nation"). Considering all this, it would be up to you to find a reliable, verifiable source that says the Harper motion recognizing Quebec as a nation doesn't apply to Quebec itself, but only to its people.--Ramdrake 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong you are. It is not up to me because what you are doing is interpreting the facts, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia, while what I am doing is *listing the facts*... big difference. To say that Quebec is a nation because 2 sources refer to the "Québécois" as a nation is interpretive. Whether you think it is specious or not is completely irrelevant because that is *your* opinion and *your* interpretation. The fact that neither source refer to Quebec (the land mass) as a nation is not *my* opinion or *my* interpretation; it is a fact. This is how Wikipedia works; we do not interpret facts for the reader based on anyone's logic, we list the facts and allow the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusion. As such, your 2 sources are not enough to list Quebec as a nation and the burden of proof is yours. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that this article about Quebec is much more than about the landmass: it's about the region, yes, but also its history, its government, its people, its economy, its culture, its demographics, its language, its symbols, and so on (says so right in the table of contents). So I would dare say that your assessment that this article is "only about Quebec as a landmass" is wrong. There are other subjects which make the recognition of Quebec as a "nation within a united Canada" pertinent to this article.--Ramdrake 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you are digressing from the point at hand — the point is, if you want to add that Quebec is a nation, find the sources that show this, period. The current source being used and the source mentioned in this discussion are not sufficient. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'm saying they are. Let's put this to an RfC.--Ramdrake 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, by all means. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. :)--Ramdrake 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC looks good. I was going to provide this: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=23ba4837-5854-458d-b513-0c2d2d0b5ea3&k=50919 This shows that a strong majority of the Québécois agree that Québec should be seen as a nation. Pieuvre 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're interpreting again. Your reference shows that a strong majority of the *French speaking Canadians* surveyed agreed that *Quebecers are a nation*. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And who makes up a majority of francophone Canadians? Here's something better: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/public-opinion/ Pieuvre 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But the poll doesn't talk about the majority of francophone Canadians; it talks about the majority of francophone Canadians surveyed - big difference. Notice that the poll mentions that francophone Canadians made up 1/3 of 1,500 respondents surveyed. Who's to say that those 500 francophone Canadians surveyed actually resided in Quebec?

Next, your second source is definitely better than the first, but I wouldn't go as far as stating that the majority of Quebeckers see their province as a nation or would want sovereignty based on this poll. You have to keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia and making either statements here would be interpreting the results of the poll for the reader, which is unencyclopedic. On the other hand, what you can say is that of 505 Quebeckers interviewed for an Environics Research Group poll, 61% responded that they think Quebec is a nation within Canada - notice; no interpretaion done for the reader? The reader can make his/her own conclusions based on this poll. If the reader feels that 505 Quebeckers is a fair respresentative sample of the entire province of Quebec, and therefore he/she believes that the majority of Quebeckers see their province as a nation, to be blunt, we don't care as long as we list the facts - their conclusion is their prerogative. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)