Talk:Quebec/Archive 4

Put Quebecois nationhood issue in context

We have resolved much here, but this compromise suggestion seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Perhaps the sentence on the Quebecois nationhood issue could be moved further down the lead so that it can be contextualized. Please make your opinion on this known:

The official language of Quebec is French; it is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French Canadian, and where English is not an official language at the provincial level. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement, and has had controversial referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995. As of 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada"[5][6][7] although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means. ( click here for discussion)--Soulscanner 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the truth. Both referendums were controversials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 20:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

So ugly... I can't believe this ! This is terrible ! soulscanner you are of bad faith ! Incredible !

Revert war on the intro

It's childish for every editor involved. Why don't we rather keep discussing in talk until we reach some consensus and then adjust accordingly? This edit war is not helping the article for anyone.--Ramdrake 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Article is protected

This issue is not minor—whether or not to include something that refers to "Québécois" in the lead section of an article on Quebec, and whether or not to qualify that something if it is included is a pretty major issue. Please—Pgsylv and Dorvaq in particular—discuss and hash out a compromise. Lexicon (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My suggestion for a solution is above, at the bottom of the "Wording of the lead" section - may have been lost in the shuffle here, but I still fel it's a good approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the situation quite fascinating that only I seem to see just how utterly useless any further discussion here will serve to prevent any future edit warring. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the problem now is not so much a wording issue, but a behavioral problem regarding Pgsylv as he/she has made it clear that he/she will not be happy with anything less than "Quebec is a nation". Pgsylv has also made it clear that he/she no longer wishes to discuss, nor is he/she willing to respect consensus, which is why I am so fascinated by all of this as I have seen editors get blocked for much less disruptive behavior than what we've experienced with Pgsylv.

Ramdrake, you mention that playing the blamimg game is not the right direction to take when seeking a solution — which I agree with to a certain extent — but how many more edit wars will Pgsylv have to initiate before you realize that discussion is not a solution as he/she is not willing to compromise.

Regardless... do you really want me to discuss my point any further? Why not? Let's see if restating the same point I've been reiterating over and over again since the onset of the feud will help to make a difference this time around:

All I ask for is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines be followed — which means; I could care less what we put in the lead, as long as whatever claim appears in the lead is properly sourced and referenced, and that consensus is respected.

That being said, there is nothing more for me to discuss and I don't even understand why I needed to discuss all of this *again* in the first place to explain my reversions. So Lexicon, go ahead and remove the protection from the article as I give you my word I will no longer revert any of Pgsylv's edits regardless of consensus. — Dorvaq (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that's acceptable, Dorvaq. I want to see a proper resolution of this conflict, and if removing the protection would simply mean that a good editor would sit back and let what he thought were bad edits stand, then we do not have an acceptable solution. Perhaps another RfC is in order, one advertised on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board to get broader input? Lexicon (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, consensus can exist without unanimity, and by my reckoning, there are still several divergent but reasonable opinions out there. Except now, I don't have the time to summarize each position so that we may discuss to try to get to some consensus. I'll try over the next day or two.--Ramdrake 00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So now, Dorvaq is erasing what I write in the discussion ! What I wrote was:

Ask a German what is his nation and he will answer: "Germany". Ask a French: "France", an English: " England " a Quebecois : "Quebecois" . That sounds really funny to me. Pgsylv 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how dorvaq and his friends are of bad faith. They take MY reference (Charles Taylor) that I wrote myself to reinforce the idea that Quebec is a nation , but they moved it to reinforce their argument that " although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means. " . That is very cunning, but miserable. Pgsylv 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think here lies the problem. You wrote this here to reinforce the contentious and much-debated issue that Quebec is a nation, presenting it as an uncontested fact. This is a plain case of trying to promote a highly politicized point of view. It's a simple fact that there is considerable debate over what "nation" means. It is obvious on this page and by the various references (including Charles Taylor). Removing references to important references that contradict his POV is particularly repugnant. There is nothing "miserable" about putting a POV into context. --Soulscanner 05:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, write down that " Quebec is a province and a nation in Canada". That is the truth and that is what should be written in an Encyclopedia. Only die-hard Federalists outside Quebec will disagree with that. 70% of the Population of Quebec is identifying to the Quebec Nation. You think there is only one Nation in Canada? Don't you see that Quebeckers are ready to stay in this country? It's just a matter of few words and ideas? Why do you insist that we talk french from cost to cost when we know it'S only in Quebec (except for few groups that have been assimilated outside the borders of Quebec). So you wan the war in 1763 and you think we stopped to exist at this time? You are dreaming ! It's because of people like you that there is a SEPARATIST mouvement in Quebec that will never die. If Canada could write in its constitution that Quebec is a nation, PQ would die with the mouvement! The problem is that you will never write it down because of extremists like Dorvaq and Soulscanner wich read history from a biaised position, the colonialist one. They hate differences, they hate the others, their attitude is Xenophobic and intolerant. It's sad to have to discuss with people like that. Pgsylv 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so we can make things clear, are you a separatist ? Tomj 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Separatist? No. I would say I am a philosopher. I like Charles Taylor. Pgsylv 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think one's political affiliation is a particularly inappropriate question to ask, especially considering the subject of this debate. That's a potential opening for an ad hominem attack.--Ramdrake 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Quebec is a nation" debate is on the agenda of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois. They use it to promote sovereignist (i.e. seperatist) sentiment in Quebec. They know that many, particulrly in the Western Canadian caucus of the governing Conservative party object to it, and that it could ignite ill feelings between Quebecers and Westerners if the issue turns into a shouting match in Parliament. This article has been here for years without placing this partisan assertion on top of the page, and it seems suspicious that this would all of a sudden appear here and be promoted by a person who obviously has a political and ideological agenda. The fact is it is a provocative statement that would be either heavily contested by some (as is the case here) and minimized by others. Personally, I think the political affiliations here are obvious, so there's no need to go into them; they are, however, highly relevant. However, I recognize that some here are mature enough to put their political views aside to realize what a neutral treatment of the subject would be; others are not. --Soulscanner 05:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A few points to agree upon

Here are a few points for discussion:

• The subject of Quebec or Quebecois "nationhood" is contentious. Even the phrasing of Quebec vs. Quebecois ignites heated controversy. Quebec nationalists wish to promote the idea of Quebec's "specificity" and "distinctness" from the rest of Canada. One way of doing this is to promote the idea of a "Quebec nation". On the other hand, many in the other provinces (particularly in Alberta) wish to promote the idea that provinces are equal, and that Quebec is a "province like the others". One side would put the proposition of Quebec nationhood in the lead, others would remove this entirely.
• From the standpoint of Wikipedia, starting an article with a contentious political assertion invites edit wars and general unreasonableness. This subject will be perpetually revisited, and the discussion page turned into a debating forum about Quebec politics. It's important that mention of this topic treat this topic neutrally.
• This article is a Class A article of high importance. It is about the territory of Quebec. Whereas the politics of the province is relevant, it is not the most important subject. Moving this topic down in the lead section as recommended by Tony Fox above is perfectly reasonable in this regard. It also affords the possibility of putting this debate about the "Quebec nation" (which often appears in international reports) in the context of what is known as "the national question" in Quebec and "the Quebec question" elsewhere in Canada. I think even here we're inviting more trouble, as everyone will want to weigh in with their own take on this contentious subject. On the the "Quebec question" is likely to be something that many Wikipedians come here for, and they deserve a summary. I think this subject is better dealt with at the articles Quebecois and Quebec nationalism, which are more directly and transparently devoted to questions of Quebec identity and politics. --Soulscanner 06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Soulscanner and think that some of us are losing sight of our reason for being here: to produce a factual article devoid of POV.

• Re.: The subject of Quebec or Quebecois "nationhood" is contentious... While a majority of people may consider something to be, the belief does not necessarily constitute reality. Quebec is no more different from the other distinct areas of Canada than they are from any other place in Canada. The Canadian House of Commons recognized that the Quebecois are a nation within a united Canada. This does not carry any weight in law and does not change Quebec's status as a Canadian province. The use of the word Quebecois refers to the population, not the province, so given Quebec's long and important history and power within Canada, the mention of the Quebec people's nationhood seems to be too trival and not appropriate for placement in the lead of this article on The Province of Quebec. Furthermore, the use of the French word "Quebecois" obfuscates the intended meaning of the House of Commons' English-language declaration. I, an anglophone who lived the first 45 years of my life in Montreal, always understood that when used in an English conversation, the word Quebecois meant an inhabitant of Quebec who is primarily French speaking or of French ancestry. "The Quebecois" was a subset of Quebecers, who were residents of Quebec regardless of linguistic, ethnic, or geographic origin. [While speaking French, I have also been "corrected" in my referring to myself as Quebecois...some francophone Quebecers seem to demand a standard higher than self-identification as a resident of Quebec to the word Quebecois], so the House of Commons' use of the word Quebecoise in an English-language declaration is confusing... does it refer only to the francophones or all Quebecers?

• Re.: Starting an article with a contentious political assertion invites edit wars and general unreasonableness... Again, I agree. The article looks great as is with Quebec as a Nation at the bottom of the History section. I say bottom here only because it is chronologically the latest developement.

• Re.: This subject is better dealt with at the articles Quebecois and Quebec nationalism... In my humble opinion, the placement of the question of nationhood in the article and the treatment given is appropriate as it stands at this moment. Further details on this topic should be dealt with elsewhere. CWPappas 07:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CWPappas's for your summary of your point of view and personal experiences. I don't want this to derail the focus of the discussion. Some of the topics brought up here could (and probably will) lead to all sorts of digressions. I'll ask that editors here focus on points directly related to moving the second sentence in the lead. Thanks. --Soulscanner 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to record my strong disagreement with many of the points mentioned above: while in several parts of Canada the population still does not wish to recognize Quebec (or its inhabitants, if you feel the distinction is important) as anything else than just another province, the Harper motion of 2006 and the promulgation of 2003 by the National Assembly say otherwise. Of course, ths recognition does not entail any additional powers whatsoever and is aimed at the cultural, historical and linguistic aspects of Quebecers forming a nation within Canada. In this sense, the Harper motion tried to be as apolitical as possible in a politically very charged situation. The contention that this article is strictly about the province seems to gloss over the fact that there are huge sections about its history, its people, its demolinguistics, etc. The article is pretty much as much about the people as about the province. Furthermore, I fail to understand this reasoning that "since it grants no additional powers, the motion bears little weight"; it seems to me like an attempt at trivializing the recognition that the Harper motion attempted to give. The factual, verifiable fact is that this recognition has been granted, and that before that it was a paramount aspect of the self-definition of Quebecer, therefore its place should be prominent in the lead, and not relegated as an afterthought to the introduction, or worse in another article altogether.--Ramdrake 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I'm attempting to approach this from the standpoint of building a neutral Wikipedia article. Firstly, Ramdrake confirmed my first point that the issue of Quebecois nationhood is contentious. Various political POV's exist. That makes it very likely that bringing it up in the lead will lead to endless political debates on a Class A page where it is best to avoid such debates. In this case, we have to be careful to acknowledge all major POV's as legitimate and give them equal weight, and describe the different points of view so that readers can better understand the debate.

Secondly, Harper's clarification pretty much "trivialized" the motion by specifying that it did nothing to change the legal or political status; that devalues it considerably, essentially presenting it as a recognition of the obvious: that most Quebecers self-identify as "Quebecois". Compared to proposals like that of the Meech Lake Accord (which would have put "distinct society" in the constitution), a "no" vote to a referendum (which kept Quebec in Canada), or the Clarity Act (which set out the legal conditions for Quebec's departure and has the force of law), the motion was relatively minor. It did not change the status of the Province of Quebec as these other laws and events did.

Lastly, we all agree that the Harper motion is a fact. It is also a fact that important ideological and political factions differ on how important the motion is; Ramdrake, argues that it is of "paramount importance" (coincidentally, that is exactly how c Quebec nationalists word it), while federalists like Harper and Dion tend to downplay it (some call it trivializing it) as a simple recognition of a sociological fact that does not affect Quebec's status within the confederation. Instead of denigrating the ones we disagree with, why not recognize that they exist and recognize them as legitimate. Hence, presenting the motion out of context at the top of the lead, without any context, would give the article a heavy nationalist POV.

I do not see why Ramdrake cannot accept putting the motion in the context of the "Quebec question" or "national question". Surely Tony Fox's proposal is the most neutral. It mentions the motion in the lead, and explains it in a neutral, descriptive paragraph that emphasizes the importance of nationalism and the sovereignty movement in Quebec. It does not delete or bury the subject, diminish nationalists or sovereignists, but merely presents the fact in a way that people from all POV's can agree upon. It explains to readers that know nothing about Quebec why such a motion is important: Quebec is majority francophone; it has a strong nationalist movement; it has been at the brink of leaving Canada; all of which have made it important to pass this motion, and all of which are essential in understanding why it is important.

I'll finish by pleading that this not turn into a debate about whether Quebec is a nation this page or what that means. This isn't about deciding which political, ideological, or academic POV is legitimate. It is about recognizing and documenting that they exist and briefly describing what they are so that readers can research these further if they so desire. --Soulscanner 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, trying to address Harper's recognition is an important point, and any discussion of Quebec as a province would be incomplete if we didn't discuss the concept of Quebec as a nation. It's definitely something that deserves a place in the lead, but the problem is that the way it's phrased at present that becomes the first key piece of information about Quebec that readers come up to. To paraphrase the lead: "Quebec is a Canadian province - and its people have been described as a nation within Canada but nobody's sure what that means - that's known as La Belle Province, and is located here." To me, that statement really leaps out of nowhere and diverts the reader's attention. This is why I've suggested that we keep the geographical information together, then bring the recognition notion in during the second or third paragraph of the lead where nationalism is discussed. It ensures that the "nation" point is placed above the fold, as it were, and cleans up the flow of the lead. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a legitimate point, but I think a better solution is to move the part about the debate on the meaning of the recognition of the people of Quebec as a nation into the article proper, as I don't see that it has anywhere near the same importance as the recognition itself (and the wording of the motion itself and Harper's comments on its definitions are clear - so I'm not sure exactly what remains unclear about it). That's why I had originally moved that part of the sentence to the "Quebec as a nation" section, and somebody then copied it back into the lead, which is the entire sentence redundantly appears in two places in the article.--Ramdrake 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be relatively comfortable with that, I think, though I'd like to see how it would read in your view before agreeing fully. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro would read like this:

Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk][1]) is a province in Canada. As of 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the people of Quebec form a nation within a united Canada"[5][6][7].

Affectionately known as la belle province ("the beautiful province"), Quebec is bordered to the west by the province of Ontario, James Bay and Hudson Bay. To the north are the Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay, to the east the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the south the United States (the states of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine). It also shares maritime borders with the Territory of Nunavut and the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

Quebec is Canada's largest province by area and its second-largest administrative division; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. It is the second most populated province, and most of its inhabitants live along or close to the banks of the Saint Lawrence River. The central and north portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited by the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Quebec operates North America's largest and most extensive civil service.

The official language of Quebec is French; it is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French Canadian, and where English is not an official language at the provincial level. Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement, and has had controversial referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995. 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.

The section "Quebec as a nation" would read the same as it does now.--Ramdrake 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quebec constitutional problem can be summed up thus - how to reconcile the imperatives that flow from certain funcdamental facts. I see four such facts:

1 - Quebec is a distinct society, the political expression of a nation, and the great majority lives within its border. - Charles Taylor

It'S a FACT that Quebec is a nation. You have to put it at the beginning of this article. Quebec is a province and a nation. That is the best way to write it down. If people in Alberta don't agree with that, it's their problem because the question of the nation is an individual one and it's up to Quebeckers to decide if they are or not a NATION. According to Stat-can, 70% of Quebeckers recognize Quebec as a Nation. So Quebec is a nation. Even the Liberal Party of Quebec recognizes this fact. Benoit Pelletier wrote two letters to "Le Devoir" last year to explain his position. Now, if you are blinded by your faith in Canadaian Federalism, it's not my problem either­. Pgsylv 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil; this is a discussion looking to find consensus and compromise, so saying people are "blinded by their faith in federalism" is not really a productive comment. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so we can make things clear, are you a separatist ? Tomj 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm civil when I say you are Federalist and that you believe in Trudeau's "multiculturalism" and "bilinguism" and a one-nation Canada. History showed it was a failure. Pgsylv 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner and Dorvaq don't wan't consensus, they wan't to invent stories like "Quebecois" Nation ! I guess they just hate Quebeckers for trying to be "different". Pgsylv 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'd like to keep everybody's political beliefs out of this discussion, as I'd like to keep to notable, verifiable facts only. Dragging our political beliefs into this will only result, AFAIK, in us getting hopelessly mired in POV debate and can lead to personal attacks and incivility. Well, that's my POV, at least. :)--Ramdrake 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I use the facts, and they use sophisms ! Pgsylv 18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you put Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk][1]) is a province in Canada. As of 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the people of Quebec form a nation within a united Canada"[5][6][7]. , it will be right. I agree with this exact formulation. Pgsylv 18:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable to everyone? It would certainly be acceptable to me.--Ramdrake 18:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That puts the nation issue directly at the top of an article about what is really a geographical entity, and puts far too much weight on that statement with regards to the political aspect. I still feel the entire sentence "As of 2006..." should be placed after the geographic description, as it seems to me to be entirely out of place where you propose it to be. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would justify putting it in the first paragraph because, to my sense, the first paragraph deals about status and identity ("what is Quebec") whereas the second answers "where is Quebec". The third paragraph seems to fall under "how does Quebec compare", whereas the fourth seems to address "what else is notable about Quebec". I guess I could sum it up by saying that to me nationhood (as was recognized in 2006) is a matter of identity, and not just another notable fact. That's why I feel it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead.--Ramdrake 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that this is an article that emphasizes a geographic territory, the Province of Quebec. For emphasizing issues of identity within Quebec, there are the following articles: Quebecois, English-speaking Quebecer, French-speaking Quebecer, Irish Quebecer, French Canadian, English Canadian, almost all of which carry neutrality tags because of the contentious nature of identity politics. You can find similar articles that emphasize the territorial aspect at Acadia, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Catalonia, Basque Country (autonomous community), Walloon_Region, and Flemish Region. All have seperate articles for related peoples, respectively: Acadians, [[English people], Welsh people, Scottish people, Irish people, Catalan people, Basque people, Walloons, Flemish people. To summarize, recognizing the Quebecois nation is not like recognizing the province of Quebec as such, just like recognizing the Acadian nation would not be live recognizing Acadia (the region) as a nation. I will point out that the only page that makes mention of "nation" in the lead is the Scotland one, and that the discussion page has degenerated into name calling because (as is the case here) this was done without consensus. I think this underlines that you simply need to make a better case before changing a lead that has been stable for years.

I apologize for sounding pointed, but I'm wondering if [[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake reading what Tony Fox and I are saying. We do not accept the placement of all elements of "Quebecois nation" sentence, and we've stated it several times. If Ramdrake is unwilling to consider a compromise on moving the sentence on the Harper motion and the "Quebecois nation" in its entirety to a paragraph that can give some context, I recommend we go to arbitration. --Soulscanner 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine let's go to mediation. Arbitration, to my understanding is basically for behavioral problems on the part of editors, and I believe this discussion has been rather civil especially given the divergence of opinions.--Ramdrake 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Definitely not an arbitration issue at this time; nobody's Godwinned the discussion yet or anything.

Might we consider a rewording of the lead paragraph to reorganize it a little bit? I think I'd be comfortable with it looking something like this:

Quebec (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk]) or, in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk][1]) is a province in Canada, the largest province by area and second-largest administrative division in the country; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. It is the only Canadian province whose population is mainly French Canadian. Quebec's official language is French, and English language is not an official language at the provincial level. Its residents are known as Québécois. In 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the people of Quebec form a nation within a united Canada."[2][3][4]

Affectionately known as la belle province ("the beautiful province"), Quebec is bordered to the west by the province of Ontario, James Bay and Hudson Bay. To the north are the Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay, to the east the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the south the United States (the states of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine). It also shares maritime borders with the Territory of Nunavut and the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Quebec is the second most populated province, and most of its inhabitants live along or close to the banks of the Saint Lawrence River. The central and north portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited by the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Quebec operates North America's largest and most extensive civil service.

Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement, and has had controversial referendums on independence in 1980 and 1995. 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.

This version doesn't smack the reader between the eyes with the political stuff immediately and gives a little bit of background that leads into the discussion of the nation statement. It seems to clear up the readability and positioning concerns that I had, anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, your version addresses all my concerns, therefore I could certainly support it.--Ramdrake 07:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with this version:

1) The most obvious is that the quote is inaccurate. The motion clearly recognized the "Quebecois" and not the "people of Quebec" as a nation.

2) Residents of Quebec are known as "Quebecers". We have established this much of a consensus on the "Quebecois" talk page. "Quebecois" carries with it politically loaded issues related to varying kinds of personal cultural identity, and not all Quebecers identify as "Quebecois". That is why it is best that political issues like this be reserved in section where the most prominent POV's can be fully and fairly explained, not in the lead of an article.

3) Placing the motion that early in the article gives the whole article a nationalist POV, overemphasizing issues of identity. Issues of identity, as I pointed out, are generally emphasized on articles on the cultural group in question, not in an article on a geographic territory.

4) Eliminating the caveat is unacceptable because, if the motion is to be mentioned, it is important to note that many do not consider this motion significant; Stephen Harper has gone out of his way to say that the motion really changes nothing; on the other end of the political spectrum Republique 2007 feels patronized by the issue, considering the motion a cynical ploy by the Harper government. In this sense, placing the motion in the lead can also be construed as advancing a political POV that favours the Harper government.

5) The motion belongs in the context of Quebec nationalist and Quebec sovereignty movements. It will not be clear to a reader who knows nothing of Quebec why this motion would be significant. Before mentioning the motion, more important events such as the referenda and perhaps the Repatriation of the Constitution and the Meech Lake Accord should be mentioned. --Soulscanner 21:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I have to say:

1) and 2)Harper was very clear when asked about who could be considered a "Québécois" that it was a matter of self-identification. Either one decides they wish to identify as a Quebecois, or one doesn't. I strongly disagree with your POV that there is a hard and fast difference between a "Quebecois" and a "Quebecer". Most people who have lived in Quebec long enough to identify culturally with the place self-identify as Quebecois/Quebecer pretty much regardless of their place of birth, and the overwhelming majority of Quebecers accept them as such. True, there may be a small minority who may disagree, but there will be bigots in any culture; just please don't paint the majority of Quebecers/Quebecois as bigots.

3)Again, that's your POV. I find it interesting (and refreshing) that, in this article, the recognition of the people of Quebec as a nation isn't mentioned in the same breath as the political thing, as the recognition is meant to be cultural, and not political. That is precisely why there are no extra powers attached to this recognition.

4)Those who consider the motion not significant are, I posit, a minority, unless you can prove otherwise (in which case I invite you to submit reliable sources to that effect -- op-ed pieces need not apply). Again, you seem to be unable to dissociate the cultural recognition this motion brings from its lack of political motivation.

5) My point is the motion exists outside of the Quebecois sovereignty movement, or else why would it have had the backing and/or approval of both federalists and nationalists (both Canadian and Quebecer) alike? Doesn't this tell you that it must mean something outside of the sovereignty discourse? I'm not a sovereignist myself, but I can recognize and appreciate the profound symbolic value of this recognition. Your desire to absolutely tie it to purely political motives is the one thing belittling its value. Therefore, I reject the points you're trying to make as trying to impose your POV without proper sources, no more and no less. And before you ask for sources for my position, they are plain and simple: I take the motion at face value. So please provide sources equally authoritative as the motion itself that say it shoudn't be taken at face value.--Ramdrake 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1) It was a misquote. All you have to do is read the motion.

2) If the difference between Quebecois and Quebecer is non-existant, why was Harper so careful to chose the word Quebecois? Had you read the references provided, you would have seen that Harper clearly made a distinction:

"I think you identify yourself. It's an identity, not a legal definition," the prime minister said."Being a Canadian carries a legal definition — you're a citizen or you're not. "But the idea of a Quebec nation is strictly a matter of identity and you can't define it for everyone." He said the concept implies ties to the French language and the territory of Quebec. "Obviously, this idea is linked to the French language. For that reason, if you're speaking of a Québécois nation you're speaking of French," he said. "You're speaking of the Québécois, not Quebecers." When asked whether anglophone Quebecers are part of the Québécois nation, Harper said: "I think some anglophones and some ethnic groups identify with the Québécois nation. Maybe some don't," he said.[1]

He could have recognized Quebec (the province) as a nation as had been the case in the original motion brought foreward by the Bloc Quebecois. Be it said that the majority of anglophones in Quebec would not refer to themselves as Quebecois (they see themselves as Quebecers civicly in the same sense as Ontarians see themselves as Ontarian), while most French Canadians would have no problem with this designation in English or in French (and would see this as describing their cultural identity in addition to their civic one). This is common knowledge in Quebec, and it doesn't make anyone a bigot. It means they there are different "national" identities based on language. Harper knows this, which is why he worded the motion in such a way that it would respect these identities without recognizing the province of Quebec itself as a nation.

Both Stephane Dion and Gilles Duceppe are at odds with Harper's definition. Dion said that:

Harper must "be very, very clear in saying that the Quebecois nation is defined in sociological terms and that it includes all Quebecers and not just those of francophone origin," the federal Liberal leader said Sunday.[2]

According to Duceppe, it is a question of residence, not identity:

Quebecois nation is comprised of "all those who live in Quebec, whether it is those who have been here for years or those who have just arrived."[3]

I'm not saying either of these interpretation of the "Quebecois nation" are right or wrong or bigoted, I'm just saying that they exist, that they conflict, and that these differences are clearly based on political ideology.

3) It's interesting that you find this rewritten article refreshing. That would be because while you may like for issues of identity in Quebec to be depoliticized, the fact is that any reference to Quebec being a nation is a highly politicized issue; I would say that such a decoupling of cultural identity from politics in any multilingual and multicultural society is rare. Wikipedia articles are here to describe issues as they are usually described elsewhere, and the Harper motion is very politically in any commentary or description that provides context. It was debated in Parliament, and a cabinet minister resigned over it. You'll have to excuse this exasperation, but the claim that this issue is not political is so laughable that I'm thinking this dialogue is a waste of time.

4) I've already mentioned that Stephen Harper trivialized them. He says the motion has no legal standing. It is strictly a symbolic political gesture, and hence changes nothing from his constitutional position that all provinces are equal. It lets him court the francophone Quebec vote he needs to win the next election. I think it's up to you to show that his Constitutional position on this has changed since Meech Lake and the 1995 Referendum, where he categorically refused to budge on the principle that all provinces are equal in Confederation (I'm assuming that you are familiar with these).

5) The original motion was brought foreward by the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party. The motivation for this is pretty clear, According to Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois:

... a lot of commentators and elected representatives in Canada have dug their heels in. Several polls have shown that the vast majority of Canadians reject the idea of officially recognizing the reality that Quebecers form a nation. This refusal to recognize the Quebec nation, to recognize an obvious reality, could be called a great Canadian mental block. It is this very refusal to recognize Quebec for what it is that explains why Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution. This refusal to recognize the Quebec nation also explains why Quebec is considered a province like any other and nothing more.[4]

Duceppe is right about the polls:

Canadians are sharply divided on whether Quebec constitutes a nation, and the division runs to a great extent along language lines, suggests a new poll. The survey of 1,500 Canadians, conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association of Canadian studies, indicates 93 per cent of Canadians, both French and English, agree Canada is a nation. But when asked if Quebecers are also a nation, only 48 per cent Canada-wide agreed, and 47 per cent disagreed, among them 33 per cent who strongly disagreed. The remaining five per cent either refused to answer or had no opinion. Broken down along official language lines, a strong majority of francophones (78 per cent) agreed Quebecers are a nation, nearly double the figure for anglophones (38 per cent). Canadians are also more ready to say aboriginals merit nation designation, with 65 per cent in agreement as opposed to 29 per cent who disagree.[5]

Again, all you have to do is go to any report on this motion, and anyone can see that it is a very contentious political issue (I've provided four references that demonstrate this). Whether it is right or wrong, the majority of Canadians feel that Quebec is a province equal to the others. I too would like to see this issue depoliticized, but that hasn't happened, and it is intellectually dishonest to depict a symbolic motion passed in the House of Commons without discussing the political motivation attached to it, and to depict it as something representing a broad consensus in Canada or even Quebec. This article was here for years and years without mentioning this politically contentious issue; it was changed without consensus by two editors. Now, a full political debate has erupted, and people waltz in and out, firing pot shots. I think this itself shows how politically contentious this issue is. --Soulscanner 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you look up the definition of "nation" you'll see that it normally applies to a group of people, therefore that would be why PM Harper refered to the Quebecois as forming a nation. Second, the source you provided does nothing but affirm that the criterion for belonging to the "Quebecois nation" is nothing else than self-identification. In addition, many of the people referring to the motion in the House of Commons debate use the term Quebecois interchangeably with "people of Quebec". Next, you present a poll to support your POV; fine, but a US poll also shows that nearly 50% of Americans think God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago. Does that invalidate or diminish the validity of the theory of evolution? Not in the least. The fact of the matter is, the motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation was passed, and that's a significant, notable enough fact for the introduction (as it speaks directly to the cultural identity of the people of Quebec). The fact that there might still be some debate around some points of the motion, while important enough to mention in the article, isn't important enough to mention in the introduction. The fact that you'd rather not have any mention of the motion in the article I believe speaks for the fact that you seem to strongly disagree wth it, and while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you have no right to impose this opinion on the rest of the editors. Several (I count at least five, possibly up to seven) editors have agreed that the motion is significant enough to have its place in the introduction, and most seem to agree important enough that it should be prominent even in the introduction. While you certainly have a right to your opinion, I would suggest you let the consensus go forward and arrive at a resolution rather than systematically belittling the value of such symbolic recognition.--Ramdrake 12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to be pointed again, as Ramdrake conitnues to outrightly ignore documented sources.

* The definitions of [nation] are legion. Look it up. All refer to groups, but the way the groups are defined are obviously different.

* The sourceS affirm that Harper, Duceppe, and Dion are at odds as to who belongs to the "Quebecois" nation. Harper says it's a question of self-identification that does not include all Qubecers; Duceppe says it's a question of residence, including all Quebecers, whether they identify as such or not. Apparantly, they were coting for different motions.

* The point about evolution is silly. Species can be defined scientifically, have a precise definition, and do not overlap; nations are defined subjectively (in this case the defintions are conflicting) as they are a question of self-identification, and can overlap.

* For the record, I agree with the motion and with Harper's interpretation of it, although that is irrelevant (I see we're reduced to second-guessing my motivations and assuming bad faith, which makes me think this conversation is getting nowhere). I just don't think a) the motion is important enough to put in the lead of an article because it merely recognizes the obvious and does not address the underlying constitutional (i.e. legal) issues b) there is not a broad enough consensus in Canada on what it means; c) reasonable people disagree with it for intellectually honest and justifiable reasons; d) it is a contentious issue that will lead to endless conflicts and discussions that have nothing to do with the main topics of the article (i.e. the territorial province of Quebec), as evidenced by the numerous irrelevant comments, insults, and soapboxing on the discussion board and by the vandalism on the page that resulted e) it reverses a consensus that has lasted on this page for years

* there's more than an insignificant debate on the motion; there is an even split in Canada on it, with 33% strongly opposing, and the major political players not even agreeing on what it means; it is misleading to present this motion out of context, as it presents the motion as something generally accepted in Canada.

* I see very few editors agreeing here. I just see a lot of presonal opinions flying around here, and administrators trying to keep the editor of the original contested passage from edit-warring and launching personal attacks.

I recommend that we take this to a dispute resolving mechanism, so that the final consensus can be documented and set, so that we do not have to constantly revisit this contentious and highly politicized issue in the future. --Soulscanner 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner, I'm sorry if I seemed to assume bad faith on your part, as it really wasn't the case. However, I see we still have some divergences in viewpoint:

1)You seem to be putting on an equal footing the words of the PM with those of the representatives of the opposition as to what the definition of "Quebecois" should be. In my view, the PM is the duly elected head of government, and his clarifications should definitely carry more weight as to how to interpret the wording. Also, please note that neither of the three party heads discussed of a situation where one who considers him or herself a Quebecois shouldn't be considered a Quebecois. Rather, some made a case for including in the definition people who would otherwise self-exclude.

2)Second, your counterpoint about evolution shows you may not be familiar with biology. Species can overlap in some respects; just look up Ring species if you're unconvinced. And yes, species boundaries get redefined all the time based on DNA evidence (just look at what happened recently to the domestic cat).

3)Again, opinion polls I don't think are relevant here.

4)While there are some divergent opinions here, just please look higher up in the talk page, and you will see that there was a previous consensus that was reached before you came to this page. Now we have a wider array of opinions and consensus may be harder to attain, but even if we go throuh a dispute resolution process, there is nothing preventing another editor to come in here next week and challenge that consensus all over again. That's just how Wikipedia works.

5)I don't get the point about the mention of the motion "reversing a consensus that has existed for years" as a)the motion is less than a year old and b)like I said above, consensus on Wikipedia is challenged every day, so one cannot expect a consensus, even a long-standing one, to last forever.

6)The definitions of nation aren't legion. Please look up the word in Wikipedia and see for yourself that there are but a few related possible meanings. Moreover, the very text of the motion makes it pretty clear which definition of nation is alluded to.

7)lastly, I would also ask you to assume good faith on my part as well, in that I have read your references, but I don't see them as having the same meaning as you obviously see in them. That's just a difference of opinions.

If you wish to take this further to a DR process, I'm with you as I want this resolved as much as you do, but even if the DR comes up with a consensual resolution, don't expect it will last forever. Someone else is bound to come in and challenge the consensus all over again.--Ramdrake 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Presenting the partisan positions of the Prime Minister as the objective truth is dishonest, particularly when it is is odds with that of many Canadians. The motion would not have passed without the support of Duceppe and Dion, who claim they were voting for a definition that included ALL residents of Quebec. A partisan political opinion especially is simply not in the same category as the simple that Quebec is a province, a description of its borders, and the form of government of that territory.

2) Irrelevant.

3) Opinion polls are very relevant becaseu they establish that this is a contentious issue, and that the sweeping that Quebec is a nation is not in the same Category as the objective statement that Quebec is a province and has certain borders;Opinion polls are considered an objective in Wikipedia. --Soulscanner 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

4) There was no such consensus. There was an agreement between 3 editors who happened to be online on the same week. I'm a regular contributor here, and many other contributors have not had a chance to weigh in. --Soulscanner 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

5) Let it be said that I had the good sense to keep this off the Quebec page, because I realised that this page is primarily about the territory (rocks, borders, geography, provincial status) and only partly about the people. I described the motion on the Quebecois page, which is a better place for discussing the meaning of Quebecois as this page deals with the people as opposed to the territory. While the people are of course important to the life of a province, they are only a part of it. --Soulscanner 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

6) There are 5 definitions here based on common descent, common language, common culture, common religion, and self-identification. This does not include the simple one of country (or civic nation), which Quebec is not. Hence, clarification is needed as to which type of nation we are talking about. In trying to clarify this, you will get different definitions from different people based on political leanings. Claiming that there are various POV's on this is just obvious. Just look at this discussion page. --Soulscanner 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

7) They may try, but it will justify any reverts made to edits that go against the consensus. They will be more easy to justify because the reasons for the consensus will be given. --Soulscanner 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to tell you that this discussion is simply lunatic. Harper was desperate and he pull a dirty trick that backfire on him. Simply remove this silliness of Quebec is a nation and move on. Also remove the quebec la belle province as it is a political point of view and for me it's an insult. For me personnaly Quebec is my country and Canada is certainly not. I don't need any of you or a referendum to know who I am. How would you feel if I call your country a province of the USA ? Quebec is my only country and that is a legitimate point of view share by millions of people in quebec. Name calling like separatist will not change this reality. I suggest next time not to invade my country. Everybody would feel a lot better. Look at this idiotic talk page and tell me your not crazy :-P Republique2007 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We have two extremes: soulscanner that uses non-neutral concepts like "Quebecois-Nation" that hie can't back up with references , and the other one is Republique2007 wich claims that Quebec is a country. To be right would be to write down that Quebec is a nation and a province. That simple. By the way, Soulscanner, you are the worst sophist ever and you don't discuss, you do a monologue. You use Goebbels propaganda tricks and that is far from being democratic. Pgsylv 14:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for Republique 2007, we have excellent psychiatric hospitals in Quebec. Tomj 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for Tomj , they have good jails in Ontario. Pgsylv 15:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, can we cut the personal attack crap? Please?--Ramdrake 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now move on and get this page unprotected. Pgsylv 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to affirm that we have a consensus before unprotecting. Could you comment on the version that I posted above, which Ramdrake has agreed to? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

go ahead, colonialists, change history and its facts. Pgsylv 00:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, several of us are working to try and find a consensus that's agreeable to everyone here; your comments are at the least unhelpful. It would be very beneficial if you would work with other editors to find a good compromise rather than offering up unhelpful comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic about which we need to be very, very careful and neutral. The way to do that is to stick with the established and properly referenced facts — we must not extrapolate the documentable facts into grand sweeping philosophical statements. It's perfectly appropriate to discuss the historical evolution of the idea of Quebec-as-nation, but this must be done in a way that acknowledges why the idea remains controversial. Nationhood is a very subjective concept which means different things to different people, and thus we need to be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view on the subject — which we do by sticking to the verifiable facts that can be confirmed in reliable sources. It is not acceptable for any article on Wikipedia to simply make a sweeping assertion that Quebec is or is not a nation. That's not for us to say — what is for us to say is that some people conceive of it as one while others don't, and these are some examples of how the question has come up in public discourse.

It's not about colonialism or historical revisionism; it's about Wikipedia's basic content policies. Bearcat 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I've been trying to base the sentence on the motion passed by the Canadian Parliament recognizing the people of Quebec (Quebecois) as a nation. This much is a hard fact, notable and documented.--Ramdrake 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, and for the record, the French, German and Spanish versions of this article all mention the 2006 recognition of Quebecers as a nation, and none of them mention any kind of controversy about it in the introduction. I haven't checked other versions of the article.--Ramdrake 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because they write POV artivles is no reason to do it here. All of them lack sources and references and a lack of context. Why not address the contentious debate on the issue across the nation that is reflected here? --Soulscanner 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Quebecois nation article

This discussion is getting too long and involved to follow. I recommend we take this discussion elsewhere for now. Perhaps what is needed is a Quebecois nation article that can provide a fully referenced article for this complex and controversial motion that we do not seem to fully understand. Once we have done that, we can come back here and decide how best to insert the topic here.

Until then, lets revert back to the original version of the lead that made no reference to Quebec being a nation. That way, we can lift the lock and the neutrality tag and allow others to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose you seem to be trying to make a POV end-run around the issue.--Ramdrake 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will accept you create an article for Quebecois Nation if you find one academic that supports this idea of a Quebecois Nation instead of a Quebec Nation. Pgsylv 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is an article on Quebec nationalism. I see no urgency to state that Quebecers constitute a national community (in addition to being a "provincial" community) when the central article on this topic is so empty. There are centuries of development yet to be covered. I recommend working on improving it so it reaches maturity. We might do ourselves a favour by starting to build up a References section that will include all major French and English language material on the topic.

Besides those I had already added under External links, here are some other interesting things I just found in 5 minutes:

Idéologies au Canada français (1850-1900) quelques réflexions d'ensemble, by Fernand Dumont (1969)

Nationalismes et politique au Québec, by Léon Dion (1975)

L'évolution du nationalisme québécois, by Louis Balthazar (1992)

Les nationalismes au Québec du XIXe au XXIe siècle, by Michel Sarra-Bournet (2002)

I have many more in a draft on fr.wikipedia.org. -- Mathieugp 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll agree to that. Lets take the discussion there. I'm just looking for a way out of the impasse on this page.

Just to be clear, do you also agree that the motion is too contentious and controversial to put in the lead of the article without context? That is what we're discussing here. --Soulscanner 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the English language Wikipedia is not ready to assert Quebecers's nationhood. When knowledge will have dispelled prejudice, misconceptions, myths etc., the English article will align itself with the other ones. -- Mathieugp 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of prejudice; it's a question of approaching it from different cultural and ideological viewpoints; to some, the Quebecois are simple residents of the province of Quebec, (like those of Ontario, Alberta, etc.) to others the Quebecois are a cultural group (nation, ethnic group, a "people", etc.); there is also the ambiguous nature of the word nation: to some, it is an independent state, like the members of the United Nations, to some it is an ethno-cultural entity, like Swedes, Croats, Germans, French Canadians, etc. The job of an encyclopedia is to explain all those viewpoints in a balanced and fair, not to choose one as legitimate and ignore the existence of others as some would propose. --Soulscanner 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no opposition between being the simple residents of the province of Quebec and these residents using the provincial state to support institutions that are national, unlike the other provinces. It is a simple fact that Quebecers are the residents of Quebec and also a simple fact that these residents are equal members in a political community whose institutions are those modern nation-states tend to have in the Western world. The enumeration of those institutions and their unbiased description is sufficient to enlighten most individuals on the subject. -- Mathieugp 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are implicitly introducing your own particular ideological definition of "nation" into the mix here without really defining it, so it is hard to comment. Be it said, this only goes to show how subjective, imprecise and ambiguous the definition of "nation" really is. That is why it is best to describe the relevant cultural, ideological, political and even linguistic perspectives that go into defining what a nation is. That is how you will arrive at a neutral article that describes all the relevant perspectives (even classical 19th century liberal republicans, if you wish). --Soulscanner 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To distinguish the various meanings conveyed by words is important, but it is not an excuse to avoid recognizing facts. The whole point of disambiguating the different acceptions of a word to permit dialogue and its consequence, the resolution of debates leading to consensus. Mathieugp 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the word "nation", except in reference to sovereign states. These pages are not for creating at that consensus and inventing meanings . They are here for reflecting the way the word is used in general and academic discourse. --Soulscanner 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is' demonstrably false, as the Encarta definition actually states[6]: 2. people of same ethnicity: a community of people who share a common ethnic origin, culture, historical tradition, and, frequently, language, whether or not they live together in one territory or have their own government. Please note that this definition specifically states that the nation doesn't need to have its own government, much less sovereignty. Also our very own article on Nation states much the same thing, so your statement is demonstrably false indeed.--Ramdrake 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)